Kidd v. Dougherty
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien. (Smith, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
The plaintiff claimed $65 of Samuel K. Dougherty, the defendant, as commission for selling a lot for him, and brought this suit therefor. The defendant being a non-resident, and having no property in the county, suit was commenced by attachment against the defendant, the plaintiff at the same time instituting garnishee proceedings against a party indebted to the defendant, in pursuance of the statute: How. Stat. §§ 6855, 6856; Laws 1883, p. 180. The writ of attachment was issued by a justice of the peace in Benton Harbor, on Friday, the thirtieth day of January, 1885, made returnable on the…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Tilton v. CofieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Great Western Railway Co. v. MillerMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
- Arnold v. NyeMichigan Supreme Court · 1871
- Barber v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Withington v. SouthworthMichigan Supreme Court · 1873
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Barker Co. v. Central West Investment Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1905
- Sarmiento v. Catherine C.Michigan Supreme Court · 1896
- Adams v. KelloggMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Wells v. McCradySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Bradford & Co. v. BaxterMichigan Supreme Court · 1918