Metz Manf'g Co. v. Holbeck
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.
By the disclosure and the answers to interrogatories, it appears prima facie that the bank,'garnishee defendant, owed no sum to the de fendant Victor Holbeck against whom the judgment ran in the principal suit; that it did owe his daughter, Marion E. Holbeck, $2,479.27; and that Ora Holbeck claimed this sum belonged to her. It also appears that this sum was the proceeds of cattle sold. Ora Holbeck was brought in under 3 Oomp. Laws 1915, § 13149, but Marion E. Holbeck was not. Upon the trial of the statutory issue, it was claimed on behalf of plaintiff that the cattle were the property of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Button v. TraderMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Kennedy v. McLellanMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Lyon v. BallentineMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Guilford v. Reeves & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Mansfield v. StevensSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1883
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Jemko, Inc. v. LiaghatNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1987
- Umbarger v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1934
- Jetco, Inc. v. Bank of VirginiaSupreme Court of Virginia · 1969
- First National Bank v. CromanMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Jacobson v. NewmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1931