Legal Opinion

Neumann v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1885PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Houghton. (Williams, J.) 'Garnishment proceeding. Plaintiff brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

Defendant was garnished by plaintiff as a *98debtor to one Xavier Dollinger. The garnishee made disclosure, and a statutory issue was framed, which came on for trial before the court without a jury, who, upon written request for a special finding, found and filed the following written finding of facts and law:

The defendant Dollinger has for several years been engaged in getting out wood, timber, etc., for the Calumet & Hecla Mining Company. In the fall of 1881 he became and was indebted to different parties in different amounts, among others to the parties who intervene here, Joseph Wertin,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Thatcher v. Wardens & Vestrymen of St. Andrew's ChurchMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
  2. Hubbardston Lumber Co. v. BatesMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  3. In re Mower's appealMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Kling v. FriesMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
  5. O'Connor v. BeckwithMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Sheldon v. MannMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Crampton v. CramptonMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Selby v. Ford Motor CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1975
  4. Bateman v. BlaisdellMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  5. Darling Milling Co. v. ChapmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1902

3 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