Legal Opinion

Gumberg v. Treusch

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1895PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Error to Kent. (Grove, J.) Garnishment proceedings. Plaintiffs bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMcGrath, C. J.

Plaintiffs obtained judgment against *546Jacob Lustig, and under 3 How. Stat. § 8091, garnished Morris H. Trensch and Emanuel Treusch, composing the firm of M. H. Treusch & Bro. Lustig is a brother-in-law of the defendants. Prior to January 2, 1888, defendants had been engaged in the cigar business on Monroe street, in the city of Grand Rapids. They had, prior to January 28, 1889, started the Hub cigar store, on the corner of Bridge and Canal streets, for a customer, and, evidently through the failure of such customer, had succeeded to that business. Lustig had been in their employ at a salary of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Hamilton v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  2. Ferris v. McQueenMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Treusch v. OttenburgCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1893

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Hoffman v. LoudMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Bush v. DelanoMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Silverstone v. London Assurance Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1913
  4. McNaughton v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Donnelly v. LyonsMichigan Supreme Court · 1913

11 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