LAMNECK, J.
The surety company claims that the order of the Probate Court, vacating its order approving the settlement on July 16, 1943, is contrary to law. It contends:
1. That since it was the prevailing party, there was no showing of fraud on its part in securing the order.
2. That the Probate Court has jurisdiction to approve a settlement and discharge a surety.
3. That there is no basis for equitable relief.
4. That the succeeding...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
