Legal Opinion

Connor v. Third National Bank

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Hosmer, J.) Garnishment proceeding. Garnishee defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.

The affidavit for the writ of garnishment states that the garnishee ,fhas property, money, goods, credits, and effects in its hands or under its control, belonging” to the principal defendant, a corporation *330organized under the laws of the State of Michigan. The-affidavit also contains the other usual averments.

The garnishee made disclosure, and stated, among other things, as follows:

“It had no property, money, goods, chattels, credits, or effects in its hands, or under its control, belonging to-said Supreme Conclave of the Eoyal Adelphia, principal defendant, unless it be so held from the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Perley v. County of MuskegonMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Gibson v. . Nat'l Park Bk. of N.Y.New York Court of Appeals · 1885
  3. Botsford v. SimmonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1875

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Ferry v. Home Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  2. NATIONSBANC MORTGAGE CORP. v. LuptakMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  3. NATIONSBANC MORTGAGE CORP. v. LuptakMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001

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

Powered by the Exa API