Hirth v. Pfeifle

• Decision Date: 28 October 1879
• Citation: 3 N.W. 239,42 Mich. 31
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: J.M. HIRTH and others v. ANNA BARBARA PFEIFLE.

3 N.W. 239

42 Mich. 31

J.M. HIRTH and others v. ANNA BARBARA PFEIFLE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 28, 1879

The makers of a joint note, being sued thereon, set up in defence that one of them had been garnished previous thereto as the debtor of the payee's husband, who he claimed was the real owner of the note; that on disclosure therein he had admitted an indebtedness upon said note to payee's husband, upon which disclosure judgment had been entered. Held, to constitute no defence.

Error to Washtenaw.

Fraser & Hamilton, for plaintiff in error.

E.D Kinne, for defendant in error.

CAMPBELL C.J.

Plaintiffs in error, being sued on a joint note given by them payable to the order of defendant in error, set up in defence that one of them, John M. Hirth, had been previously garnished in a suit against one Adam Pfeifle, whom they averred to have been always the real owner of the note, and that John M. Hirth thereupon disclosed that he was indebted to said Adam Pfeifle on the note, and upon that disclosure judgment was rendered against him for its amount.

The record shows that on the second day of November, 1877, one Christian Schmidt sued John M. Hirth as garnishee of John A Pfeifle in the circuit court for the county of Washtenaw, the suit against Pfeifle having been begun in that court. The disclosure is entitled in a cause against John Adam Pfeifle. The disclosure contains no reference to Abraham Hirth as signer of the note, and does not describe any note payable to Anna Barbara Pfeifle.

We might be called upon to consider the very peculiar defects in these proceedings, if they were not otherwise fatally defective. It is very certain that a person summoned as garnishee cannot waive or destroy by his admissions the rights of the owners of the claims against him, and that Mrs Pfeifle cannot be affected by his admissions or assertions that he owed her husband and not her. The lawful owner of a claim can only be estopped by garnishee proceedings in which the garnishee has been put by regular course of law into a position to bind such owner. Hekel v. Amazon Insurance Co. 33 Mich. 400. In Wetherwax v. Paine, 2 Mich. 555, it was held that garnishee process could not reach a debt due from two joint debtors by service on one. It is a garnishee's duty when he makes a disclosure to set forth the true condition of the liability, and if he sees fit to admit a different liability than the true one, or...