Detroit Post & Tribune Co. v. Reilly
| Decision Date | 29 June 1881 |
| Citation | 46 Mich. 459,9 N.W. 492 |
| Parties | DETROIT POST & TRIB. CO. v. REILLY and another. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Garnishee proceedings for the attachment of a claim for damages for a libel cannot be instituted until after judgment has been entered upon the verdict. Injunction to restrain collection of judgment, held, properly dissolved.
Appeal from superior court, Detroit.
C.J. Reilly, for defendants.
The defendant Phelps recovered in the superior court of Detroit a verdict against the complainant on the twenty-fourth day of January, 1881, upon which judgment was entered March 12th. January 27, 1881, a writ of garnishment was sued out of the Wayne circuit court by Louis Selling who claimed to be a creditor of Phelps, and such writ was on the same day served upon the complainant. February 11, 1881, the complainant filed its disclosure, and on the sixteenth of February a demand of trial was filed by the garnishee plaintiff in such garnishee suit. March 10, 1881, complainant was notified that the verdict above mentioned had been, on the twenty-fifth day of January, 1881, assigned to the defendant Reilly. The complainant thereupon filed its bill of interpleader in the superior court against these defendants, Reilly, Phelps and Selling, and an injunction was issued restraining the collection of such judgment and the prosecution of the garnishee suit. The injunction was afterwards set aside because the amount of such judgment had not been paid into the court; but this having afterwards been done the injunction was renewed. A motion was afterwards made to dissolve the injunction and an order made granting the motion, and from this order the complainant appealed.
The suit in which the verdict and judgment against the complainant were rendered was for a libel. In such a case until a judgment was entered upon the verdict there is no indebtedness that could be garnished. Hill v. Bowman, 35 Mich. 191. As the garnishee proceedings were commenced after verdict but before judgment the complainant herein is not all likely to be injured thereby.
The order appealed from will be affirmed with costs.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rutter v. King
...Unliquidated tort claims are not proper subjects of garnishment. 38 C.J.S. Garnishment § 91, p. 296; Detroit Post & Tribune Co. v. Reilly, 46 Mich. 459, 9 N.W. 492 (1881). The question of whether an excess judgment claim arising out of an insurer's alleged bad faith is unliquidated or not h......
-
Jewell v. Nuhn
... ... a sum of money due under certain and express agreement ... Detroit Post & Tribune Co. v. Reilly , (Mich.) 46 ... Mich. 459, 9 N.W. 492; 8 ... ...
-
Jewell v. Nuhn
...headed? 2. As a general proposition, the term “debt” is applied to a sum of money due under certain and express agreement. Reilly's Case, 46 Mich. 459, 9 N. W. 494; 8 Am. & Eng. Encyc. (2d Ed.) 986; Hill's Case, 35 Mich. 191; Bouvier's Law Dict.; 3 Black Com. 54; 2 Black Com. 264; Rodman's ......
-
Barney v. Preferred Automobile Ins. Exch.
...not disturb the rule of garnishment recognized in Hill v. Bowman, 35 Mich. 191, as subsequently made plain by Detroit Post & Tribune Co. v. Reilly, 46 Mich. 459, 9 N. W. 492, wherein it is again held that a judgment on verdict in a tort action is an indebtedness subject to garnishment after......