Brotherton Co. v. Jackson
| Decision Date | 16 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 10.,10. |
| Parties | BROTHERTON CO. v. JACKSON (JOHNSON, Garnishee). |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Clyde I. Webster, Judge.
Action by the Brotherton Company against William J. Jackson, individually and doing business as William J. Jackson Company, in which William K. Johnson, individually and doing business as Olympic Wrecked Auto Service, was garnished. Order quashing writs of garnishment, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. Henry H. Roberts, of Detroit, for appellant.
Barbour & Martin, of Detroit, for appellee Jackson.
Plaintiff brings error to review the judgment of the circuit judge in quashing certain writs of garnishments.
The plaintiff began suit by attachment against William J. Jackson on the 22d day of November, 1923, and on the same day the sheriff attached a Studebaker sedan, belonging to the defendant, and stored it with William K. Johnson, who was doing business as Olympic Wrecked Auto Service. On January 28, 1924, the attachment was dissolved by order of the circuit judge, and the sheriff was directed to restore the attached property to the defendat ‘after the expiration of five days from the date hereof.’ On the 26th of January, 1924, the plaintiff filed an affidavit for a writ of garnishment, and the writ was issued and served upon William H. Johnson, in whose garage the automobile was stored. Thereafter, on February 2, 1924, a second writ of garnishment was issued and served on Mr. Johnson. On the 4th day of February, 1924, a third writ of garnishment was issued and served.
The garnishee defendant filed a disclosure stating that he had no money, goods, chattels, property, credits, or effects in his hands belonging to the principal defendant, but that as custodian of the sheriff of Wayne county he held an automobile which he understood belonged to the principal defendant.
The plaintiff demanded a jury trial of the issue raised by the disclosure. The principal defendant moved to quash the writs of garnishment. The motion states that it is based upon the files and records and upon certain affidavits. On hearing the motion, the circuit judge entered an order quashing the writs. The plaintiff beings error.
It is the plaintiff's contention that, except for defects apparent on the face of the proceedings, which go to the jurisdiction of the court, there is no authority for quashing writs of garnishment on motion, and that it was entitled to have the issue between it and the garnishee defendant tried out according to the garnishment statute.
There were three writs of garnishment issued. The first was that of January 26, 1924. It did not comply with the statute, and the plaintiff concedes it should have been quashed. The two later writs complied in all respects with the statute. There is no apparent defect on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Joy v. Two-Bit Corp.
...82, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 472, 7 Ann.Cas. 754;Borderland Coal Sales Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 228 Mich. 198, 199 N.W. 641;Brotherton Co. v. Jackson, 231 Mich. 604, 204 N.W. 704. The several orders of the trial court are vacated and the cause remanded for further proceeding. Costs to appellant.BU......
-
Cyrowski v. Wojcik
...v. Grand Rapids Trust Co., 221 Mich. 160, 190 N.W. 684;Thomson v. Kent Circuit Judge, 230 Mich. 354, 203 N.W. 108;Brotherton Co. v. Jackson, 231 Mich. 604, 204 N.W. 704, but in view of the admissions of counsel made in the record at the time of the hearing on the motion, we hold that the fo......
- Jones v. Armstrong
-
Oreland Equip. Co. v. COPCO Steel & Eng'g Corp.
...of course depend upon the further progress of the case. Issues of fact cannot be disposed of on a motion to dismiss. Brotherton Co. v. Jackson, 231 Mich. 604, 204 N.W. 704. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Appellant may have costs.NORTH, C. J., and STARR, WIEST, BUTZEL, BUSHNE......