Legal Opinion
Ruhl v. A. Ruoff Brewing Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided May 28, 1897PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Garnishment proceedings in justice’s court by John E. Ruhl against the A. Ruoff Brewing Company, as garnishee of John Pennell. Plaintiff had judgment, and the garnishee appealed to the circuit, where verdict was directed for the plaintiff. Pending the entry of judgment upon the verdict, plaintiff died, and the cause was revived in the name of his executrix, Louise Ruhl. The garnishee defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
Plaintiff had a judgment against John Pennell for $109, and instituted garnishee proceedings against the appellant, whose disclosure was made by its vice president, Edward Ruoff, who testified in justice’s court as follows:
“I had some money before service of summons, but the company had entered into a contract with the principal defendant. I had not paid the money for license. The company had it in its possession. Defendant is indebted to me. The secretary of our company signed an agreement to pay defendant’s license. Defendant has paid $135. This transaction was before the service of the…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Kelly v. . RobertsNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Ellis v. WhteheadMichigan Supreme Court · 1893
- Isabelle v. Iron Cliffs Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885
- Spears v. ChapmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Sexton v. AmosMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- J. O. Nessen Lumber Co. v. Ray H. Bennett Lumber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1923
- Zucker v. CervelliOhio Court of Appeals · 1962