Ford v. Detroit Dry Dock Co.
| Decision Date | 18 April 1883 |
| Citation | 15 N.W. 509,50 Mich. 358 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | FORD v. DETROIT DRY DOCK CO. |
Garnishees cannot be held in a suit against joint defendants, if their disclosure shows an indebtedness to only a part of the defendants.
Garnishment proceedings are purely statutory, and cannot be extended by construction.
Relief cannot be given on review to a party who does not complain of a judgment against him.
The garnishment law does not contemplate proceedings to determine the relative right of several joint defendants, where some of them might be entitled to contribution from the others for an excess of property taken beyond their shares.
Error to Wayne.
Frazer & Gates, for plaintiff and appellant.
George W. Coomer, for defendant.
Plaintiff recovered before a justice a joint judgment against four defendants, and garnished the present defendant. An answer was put in admitting indebtedness in small amounts to a part of the defendants, each individually, but no joint indebtedness to any portion or to all of them. It also relied on their being householders. In the circuit court, to which the garnishee case was appealed, a judgment was rendered against the present defendant for the excess of the money due by the garnishee beyond the statutory allowance to each defendant as a householder. Plaintiff brings error, claiming that he should have had judgment for the aggregate. As we have found nothing in the statute which allows garnishee proceedings to reach property or debts belonging to only a part of the principal defendants, and as it is manifestly required by the statute that the defendant or defendants in the principal suit shall be the person or persons in whose right the garnishee plaintiff is allowed to prosecute the garnishee defendants, there is in our opinion no foundation for this complaint. These proceedings are purely statutory, and cannot be extended by construction. It never was designed, by means of these proceedings, to make further proceedings necessary to determine the relative rights of various defendants, who might be entitled to contribution from their co-defendants for an excess of property taken beyond their shares. The plaintiff has no reason to complain of the judgment, and as defendant has not appealed, it must be affirmed, with costs against plaintiff.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. A. T. & G. Co., Inc.
...remedy, its application will be limited whenever possible by reasonable construction of court rules and statutes. Ford v. Detroit Dry Dock Co., 50 Mich. 358, 15 N.W. 509 (1883); People's Wayne County Bank v. Stott, 246 Mich. 540, 224 N.W. 352 Because this case concerns a statutory provision......
-
Edward Thompson Co. v. Maynard
...is acquired authority must be found in the law providing for the proceeding. Hebel v. Insurance Co., 33 Mich. 400;Ford v. Dry Dock Co., 50 Mich. 358, 15 N. W. 509;Iron Cliffs Co. v. Lahais, 52 Mich. 394, 18 N. W. 121. ‘Section 8145, How. St., provides how suits may be commenced in the circu......
-
Isabelle v. Iron Cliffs Co.
... ... Co. 33 Mich. 65; Thomas v. Sprague, 12 Mich ... 120; Wellover v. Soule, 30 Mich. 482; Ford v ... Detroit Dry-dock Co. 50 Mich. 358; S.C. 15 N.W. 509 ... This is ... the only ... ...
-
Perea v. Colorado Nat. Bank of Texas
... ... be extended by construction. Ford v. Dry-Dock Co., ... 50 Mich. 358, 15 N.W. 509. The only authority for the ... proceeding is that ... ...