Milwaukee Bridge & Iron Works v. Brevoort

• Decision Date: 08 January 1889
• Parties: MILWAUKEE BRIDGE & IRON WORKS v. BREVOORT, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

41 N.W. 215

73 Mich. 155

MILWAUKEE BRIDGE & IRON WORKS v. BREVOORT, CIRCUIT JUDGE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 8, 1889

Application for mandamus.

Petition for writ by the Milwaukee Bridge & Iron Works to compel the circuit judge of Wayne county to grant the relator's motion to quash garnishment proceedings.

SHERWOOD C.J.

Petitioner is a corporation organized under the laws of Wisconsin having its principal office in Milwaukee, and having no office or place of business in this state. One Esson owed Quinn, of Detroit, and on the 27th of July, 1888, Quinn brought suit in the Wayne circuit to recover the debt, and garnished the president of petitioner, who was temporarily in the said county at the time the writ was served. The affidavit for the writ, in addition to these facts, stated that the affiant had good reason to believe, and did believe, that the relator had property, money goods, credits, or effects in its hands, or under its custody or control, belonging to the defendant John E. Esson, and that said Milwaukee Bridge & Iron Works is indebted to the defendant John E. Esson; that such indebtedness was $454, and affiant was apprehensive the debt would be lost unless the writ issued, and therefore the writ was issued. On the 4th day of August following, the relator made a motion to quash the writ on the grounds- First, that the affidavit does not state that the indebtedness to the principal defendant was due second, the defendant is a foreign corporation; third, it does not state that the corporation is within, or is doing business within, this state, or within the jurisdiction of the court; fourth, it does not state where the corporation was located at the time the writ was issued. The circuit court denied this motion. It is to vacate this order of denial, and to direct the granting of relator's motion to quash the garnishee proceedings, that mandamus is now asked, and which, we think, after looking into the papers, should be granted.

It is true, the circuit judge in responding to the writ says that he found as facts that the relator was engaged upon a job it had taken in Wayne county, which was a part of the business the company was organized for the purpose of doing, and that it had its principal office in Milwaukee; that the writ was served upon its president, while in Detroit, looking after the business of the company in connection with the job; that the principal defendant was a...