History
  • No items yet
midpage
Berry v. Innes
35 Mich. 189
Mich.
1876
Check Treatment
Per Curiam:

The order adjudging the defendant guilty of contempt was unwarranted. The defendant could not he guilty of contempt until a deed had been presented to him for execution and he had refused to execute it. He was not bound at his peril to prepare and execute such a deed as the decree called for.

But we also think the decree could not lawfully have been amended without notice; and though the amendment could not injure this defendant, yet as the decree itself appears to he in some particulars not warranted by the case made, we think the defendant should he allowed to take advantage of the error. The order appealed from will therefore be reversed, with costs, and leave given to file a hill of review. If the parties cannot now agree what their respective rights are, and settle them without further litigation, Nixon, Ernst, and the Trills ought in some manner to be brought before the court.

Case Details

Case Name: Berry v. Innes
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Oct 25, 1876
Citation: 35 Mich. 189
Court Abbreviation: Mich.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.