15 Mich. 415 | Mich. | 1867
Said he thought the appeal should be dismissed for the same reasons assigned by him in Lewis v. Campau, 14 Mich. 458.
This case differs entirely from Lewis v. Campau. I think a legal estate can not be divested by preliminary proceedings. But nothing like that is attempted here. The
Regarded the order appealed from as clearly interlocutory within the former decisions by this court. The order in Lewis v. Campau gave the complainant that which his bill prayed for as the end and object of the bill upon that branch of the case; and the decision proceeded on the ground that the relief asked for, so far as the receiver was concerned, was ancillary, not to further relief to be had in that case, but to the proceedings on the probate appeal. The appointment in this case, on the contrary, is only pending the suit, and auxiliary to the principal relief which this bill prays for. Wisely or unwisely, the legislature have not authorized us to review such an order at this stage of the case.
Also concurred, considering the case quite distinct from the one referred to, though he did not think that a failure in the bill to make out a ease would make any difference
The question whether an order is final or interlocutory does not depend upon the question whether it was properly or improperly granted.
Appeal dismissed.