Botsford v. Simmons
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. The finding of facts and conclusions of law in this caso were substantially as follows: “John G-. Simmons, the principal defendant, and F. W. Thrall, the claimant, in the winter of 1873-4, were each engaged in the produce commission business in Cleveland, Ohio, and January 30, 1874, Simmons purchased a quantity of dried apples at Fairmount, West Virginia, which were bought and marked and shipped in his name to Cleveland, but the money to make the…
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit. The finding of facts and conclusions of law in this caso were substantially as follows: “John G-. Simmons, the principal defendant, and F. W. Thrall, the claimant, in the winter of 1873-4, were each engaged in the produce commission business in Cleveland, Ohio, and January 30, 1874, Simmons purchased a quantity of dried apples at Fairmount, West Virginia, which were bought and marked and shipped in his name to Cleveland, but the money to make the purchase and to pay the freight was furnished by Thrall to Simmons by two checks' dated February 5th and Gth, 1874, and the…
1Opinion of the Court
•GRAVES, Oh. J:
In July, 1874, the plaintiff in error recovered judgment .against Simmons for damages, two hundred and eighty-eight •dollars and forty-two cents, besides costs of suit, and whilst that suit was pending, and on the 16th day of February of the same year, they summoned Hill to answer as garnishee. The affidavit for this summons is not in the printed record, but the summons itself is set out, and it thereby appears that the claim against Hill was not that he was in any way indebted to Simmons; but that he “had property, money, goods, ■chattels, credits and effects in his hands, or…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Coleman & Carroll v. Hatcher & BrannonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1884
- Connor v. Third National BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1892