Posselius v. First Nat. Bank-Detroit
Decision Date | 05 December 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 14.,14. |
Citation | 251 N.W. 429,264 Mich. 687 |
Parties | POSSELIUS et al. v. FIRST NAT. BANK-DETROIT et al. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; DeWitt H. Merriam, Judge.
Action in assumpsit by Edward J. Posselius and another, executors of the estate of Alphonse D. Posselius, deceased, against the First National Bank-Detroit, in which plaintiffs garnisheed the Ernst Kern Company. From an order and judgment quashing the writ of garnishment, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench except FEAD, J.
Fred H. Sims, of Detroit (McLeod, Fixel, Abbott & Fixel and Harry N. Deyo, all of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.
Stevenson, Butzel, Eaman & Long, of Detroit (Robert S. Marx, of Cincinnati, Ohio, and Rockwell T. Gust, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee First Nat. Bank-Detroit.
In an assumpsit suit against the principal defendant and before judgment therein, plaintiffs garnisheed the Ernst Kern Company. Both the principal defendant and the garnishee defendant moved to quash the writ of garnishment on the ground that the suit was against a national bank and garnishment proceeding could not be instituted prior to judgment. In so asserting, defendants rely on section 91 of title 12 of the U. S. Code Annotated (section 5242, Revised Statutes) which in part reads: ‘* * * No attachment, injunction or execution, shall be issued against such association or its property before final judgment in any suit, action, or proceeding, in any State, county or municipal court.’
The motions to quash were granted. Leave having been obtained, plaintiffs have appealed.
Reference is not expressly made to garnishment proceedings in the above-quoted statute; and appellants contend that, since garnishment is not mentioned, it is not included within the statutory prohibition. On the other hand appellees assert, and the circuit judge held, that garnishment is a form of attachment and should be held to be within the purpose and spirit of the quoted statutory provision.
Obviously, the purpose of the quoted congressional act is to prohibit the seizing or impounding of assets of national banks by a mesne process before final judgment. It seeks to prevent impairment of a bank's ability to function normally. It is common knowledge that a large portion of the assets of any bank consists of debts due the bank. Doubtless such assets usually exceed the value of a bank's tangible assets which would be subject to attachment. Hence the purpose of the quoted act would not be accomplished should the word ‘attachment’ as used therein be so strictly and narrowly construed as to exclude our writ of garnishment.
‘* * * A thing which is within the spirit of a statute is within the statute, although not within the letter; and a thing within the letter is not within the statute, unless within the intention.’ Common Council of City of Detroit v. Rush, 82 Mich. 532, 542, 46 N. W. 951, 954,10 L. R. A. 171.
‘* * * The intention of the Legislature, when discovered, must prevail, any existing rule of construction to the contrary notwithstanding.’ Michigan Central R. Co. v. State, 148 Mich. 151, 111 N. W. 735, 737.
‘But the primary object of all interpretation or construction of statutes, is, to ascertain the real intention of the legislature; and no specific or artificial rules of interpretation can be of any value, which do not contribute to this end.’ People ex re. Whipple v. Judge of Saginaw Circuit Court, 26 Mich. 342, 344. See, also, Von Hoene v. Barber, 215 Mich. 538, 184 N. W. 526.
While there are in our state...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens for Pre-Trial Justice v. Goldfarb
...the bondsman's risk. In construing a statute, it is our duty to give effect to the legislative intent. Posselius v. First National Bank Detroit, 264 Mich. 687, 689, 251 N.W. 429 (1933). However, to discover that intent one must first look to the plain meaning of the statute's words. Chrysle......
-
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of West Hollywood
...National Bank of Wilmington & Brandywine v. Furtick, 2 Marv. (Del.) 35, 42 A. 479, 481, 44 L.R.A. 115; Posselius v. First National Bank, 264 Mich. 687, 251 N.W. 429, 430, 90 A.L.R. 342; J. T. Sinclair Co. v. I. T. Becker Coal Co., 263 Mich. 617, 249 N.W. 13, 14. 13 Ex parte Cincinnati, S.&M......
-
Federal Housing Administration, Region No Foley v. Burr
...a writ of garnishment is a civil process at law, in the nature of an equitable attachment. See Posselius v. First National Bank-Detroit, 264 Mich. 687, 251 N.W. 429, 90 A.L.R. 342. But however it may be denominated, whether legal or equitable,5 and whenever it may be available, whether prio......
-
Hayden v. Caledonia National Bank
... ... 69, 71 A. 881, no scienter being ... alleged; the first and fourth contained an averment of the ... scienter. The defendant moved ... Also, ... see Posselius et al., Exrs. v. First National ... Bank-Detroit, Ernest Kern Company, ... ...