History
  • No items yet
midpage
Patterson v. Albert
264 N.W. 868
Mich.
1936
Check Treatment

When this case was here in Patterson v. Albert, 267 Mich. 40, where the facts will sufficiently appear, the decree of the trial court was modified and the case remanded to amend the decree in accordance with the opinion of this court. Before the amended decree was entered by the trial court, defendant made an application for a moratorium.* This application was denied, and defendant appeals. *Page 470

The trial court held under the facts it would not grant a moratorium. The granting of a moratorium is permissive, depending upon the discretion of the court, and not a matter of right. Ciotte v. Ullrich, 267 Mich. 136. We cannot find under the facts in this case the trial court abused his discretion.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

NORTH, C.J., and FEAD, WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL, EDWARD M. SHARPE, and TOY, JJ., concurred.

* See Act No. 98, Pub. Acts 1933, as amended. — REPORTER.

Case Details

Case Name: Patterson v. Albert
Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court
Date Published: Jan 31, 1936
Citation: 264 N.W. 868
Docket Number: Docket No. 77, Calendar No. 38,523.
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.