Legal Opinion

Fearey v. Cummings

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 3, 1879PublishedCited by 58 opinions

Error to Bay. Garnishment. Plaintiffs bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtGrates, J.

The plaintiffs having brought suit against Nellis to recover a little less than one thousand dollars upon contract, proceeded on that footing to sue the defendants Cummings as garnishees under the act of March 16, 1861 (Comp. L., p. 1818), as amended in 1877. Public Acts of 1877 [No. 81], p. 63.

The oath for process was made June 6, 1878, and claimed that the parties in question as garnishees had property, money, goods, chattels, credits and effects in their hands' and under their control belonging to Nellis, and further that they were indebted to him.

A summons for them was thereupon issued,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Thompson v. . Van VechtenNew York Court of Appeals · 1863

3Cited by58 opinions

  1. People's Savings Bank v. BatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  2. Cameron, Hull & Co. v. MarvinSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
  3. Union National Bank v. OiumNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Detroit Trust Co. v. Detroit City Service Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Chandler v. ColcordSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1893

53 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