Smith v. Holland
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Clair. (Canfield, J.) Garnishment proceedings. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. contended as stated in the opinion, citing no authorities. 1. When the disclosure showed that a third party, claiming to be the owner, had presented the note for payment, it was the duty of plaintiff to interplead said claimant; citing Act No. 176, Laws of 1885; Kennedy v. McLellan, 76 Mich. 598 (head-note 5). 2. The disclosure contained all the…
Read the full summary
Error to St. Clair. (Canfield, J.) Garnishment proceedings. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion. contended as stated in the opinion, citing no authorities. 1. When the disclosure showed that a third party, claiming to be the owner, had presented the note for payment, it was the duty of plaintiff to interplead said claimant; citing Act No. 176, Laws of 1885; Kennedy v. McLellan, 76 Mich. 598 (head-note 5). 2. The disclosure contained all the information possessed by defendant as to the claim of third parties to the fund, and this is as far as he was called upon to go;…
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
An affidavit for writ of garnishment was filed in the circuit court for St. Clair county on February 18, 1887, and writ was issued against defendant garnishee on that day and personally served. At the time of the filing of the affidavit, a suit was commenced in said court by declaration against the principal defendant in an action of assumpsit. The suit proceeded to judgment, and on October 1, 1887, judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff and against the principal defendant for $1,810.64, and costs, taxed at $46.50. The garnishee defendant, in answer to the writ served upon him, made…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Lyon v. KneelandMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ruhl v. A. Ruoff Brewing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Zucker v. CervelliOhio Court of Appeals · 1962