Heineman v. Schloss
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Brevoort, J.) Garnishment proceedings. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtCahill, J.
The plaintiffs, having recovered a judgment against Rachael Solomon, the principal defendant, commenced this suit in garnishment against the defendants, on October 11, 1889. The facts necessary to an understanding of the case are as follows:
Rachael Solomon was engaged in the mercantile business, having stores in Escanaba, Gladstone, and Oscoda, in this State. She purchased, in the summer and fall of 1888, on credit, goods amounting to $50,000, and upwards, which were shipped to her various stores. Her husband, Selig Solomon, was the general manager of her business. In November, 1888, Selig…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Fearey v. CummingsMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
3Cited by26 opinions
- Rookledge v. GarwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1954
- Guardian Depositors Corp. v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1939
- Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. KeatingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1933
- Todd v. Boards of Election CommissionersMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. QuimbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1968
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.