Legal Opinion

Van Buren v. Armstrong-Jewell Construction Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 1929No. Docket No. 41, Calendar No. 34,067PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClark, J.

Plaintiffs had judgment against defendant corporation. An execution was issued and at once placed in the hands of the sheriff. He retained it until the day following the return day, when he returned it “wholly unsatisfied.”

Plaintiffs filed this judgment creditors’ bill seeking to reach assets of the judgment debtor in the hands of the individual defendants. Prom a decree for plaintiffs, defendants have appealed.

A plaintiff, to maintain such a bill, must ordinarily show that he is remediless at law, “and of this the issuance of an execution and its return unsatisfied are the most acceptable…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Cady v. DoxtatorMichigan Supreme Court · 1916
  2. Newlove v. PennockMichigan Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Boright v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1930
  2. Schultz v. Union Pacific RailroadCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
  3. Winders v. Illinois Central Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  4. Witort v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1929
  5. Boright v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1930

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API