Westgate v. Drake

5 Citing cases

  1. Shouneyia v. Shouneyia

    291 Mich. App. 318 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 16 times

    The Michigan Supreme Court decades ago considered several appeals aris[ing] out of the receivership pending under the decree of divorce in Westgate v. Westgate, 291 Mich. 18 [288 N.W. 860 (1939)( Westgate I ) ]. The appointment of the receiver was upheld by this court in Westgate v. Westgate, 294 Mich. 88 [292 N.W. 569 (1940)( Westgate II ) ]; Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 116 [292 N.W. 573 (1940)( Westgate III ) ]; and Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 120 [292 N.W. 574 (1940)( Westgate IV ) ]. [ Westgate v. Larsen, 296 Mich. 434, 435, 296 N.W. 317 (1941)( Westgate V ).]          In one of the Westgate appeals upholding the receiver's appointment, Westgate III, 294 Mich. at 117, 292 N.W. 573, the Supreme Court summarized the relevant factual background:

  2. Clark v. Clark

    23 N.W.2d 653 (Mich. 1946)   Cited 1 times

    The trial court was right in dismissing the petition to vacate the order of December 1, 1943, modifying the decree. See Tuthill v. Tuthill, 259 Mich. 272; Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 120. In the event of a change in circumstances defendant has, of course, the right to petition for further modification, which right was expressly reserved to her by the decree as modified.

  3. Westgate v. Westgate

    9 N.W.2d 661 (Mich. 1943)   Cited 4 times

    Since affirmance of the divorce decree, a large number of miscellaneous applications and petitions have been presented to, and considered by, this court. Additional opinions which contain much of the factual background of the present appeal have been written and are reported as follows: Westgate v. Adams, 293 Mich. 559, relative to the receiver's control and possession of certain property withheld by Leroy Smith and Lyle R. Adams; Westgate v. Westgate, 294 Mich. 88, regarding defendant's appeal from an order allowing attorney's fees; Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 116, being Drake's appeal from the denial of his motion to dissolve an injunction granted the receiver; Westgate v. Drake, and Timmer v. Drake, 294 Mich. 120, having to do with receiver Timmer's petition to join Nellie Drake and others as defendants, and for an order cancelling a duplicate certificate of title issued to Nellie Drake; Westgate v. Larsen, 296 Mich. 434, relative to receiver Timmer's control and possession of certain assets claimed by Larsen; Westgate v. Westgate, and Timmer v. Sanderson, 296 Mich. 439, concerning the receiver's control of certain assets claimed by defendants Sanderson. The present appeal is from a decree entered on January 18, 1941, after various hearings on several supplemental petitions, and orders to show cause issued thereon, and on the claims of the United States of America and the State of Michigan.

  4. Westgate v. Larsen

    296 N.W. 317 (Mich. 1941)   Cited 2 times

    BOYLES, J. This case arises out of the receivership pending under the decree of divorce in Westgate v. Westgate, 291 Mich. 18. The appointment of the receiver was upheld by this court in Westgate v. Westgate, 294 Mich. 88; Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 116; and Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 120. The situation in the instant case is somewhat similar to that considered by us in Westgate v. Adams, 293 Mich. 559. For a complete understanding of the facts and circumstances, see the above opinions. In the case at bar, an order to show cause in the pending receivership was served upon defendant Larsen February 21, 1939, directing him to show cause why the lease under which he held a gasoline station should not be cancelled, or, in lieu thereof, he be required to follow the instructions of the receiver and recognize the receiver's control in the operation of such station to the exclusion of Westgate and associates.

  5. Westgate v. Westgate

    296 N.W. 319 (Mich. 1941)   Cited 1 times

    BOYLES, J. This case arises out of the receivership pending under the decree of divorce in Westgate v. Westgate, 291 Mich. 18, and is similar in many respects to Westgate v. Larsen this day handed down, ante, 434. For a complete understanding of the facts and circumstances, see Westgate v. Westgate, 294 Mich. 88; Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 116; and Westgate v. Drake, 294 Mich. 120. A similar situation was considered by us in Westgate v. Adams, 293 Mich. 559. The controlling question in the instant case is whether defendants Laurance Sanderson and Roy Sanderson have been deprived of their right to a day in court. On March 15, 1939, the circuit judge entered an order in the pending receivership proceedings joining certain named filling-station operators, among them Laurance Sanderson, as defendants in the cause.