
    PATTERSON v. ALBERT.
    1. Mortgages—Moratorium Relief—Discretion of Court.
    Granting moratorium relief to mortgagor is permissive, depending upon the discretion of the court, and is not a matter of right (Act No. 98, Pub. Acts 1933, as amended).
    2. Same—Abuse of Discretion.
    Under record presented, trial court held, not to have abused his discretion in denying application for a moratorium in mortgage foreclosure (Act No. 98, Pub. Acts 1933, as amended).
    Appeal from Wayne; Van Zile (Donald), J., presiding.
    Submitted October 15, 1935.
    (Docket No. 77, Calendar No. 38,523.)
    Decided January 31, 1936.
    Bill by Peter Patterson against Rose Albert to foreclose a mortgage. On petition for relief under mortgage moratorium act. Prom order denying relief, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Lloyd Lj. Axford, William E. Tarsney, and Arthur Axford (Ray Cashen, of counsel), for plaintiff.
    
      Samuel H. Rubin {Melba Levin-Rubin, of counsel), for defendant.
   Potter, J.

When this ease 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.

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.
     