Musselman Grocery Co. v. Kidd, Dater & Price Co.

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Citation: 151 Mich. 478,115 N.W. 409
• Decision Date: 17 March 1908
• Parties: MUSSELMAN GROCERY CO. v. KIDD, DATER & PRICE CO.

151 Mich. 478
115 N.W. 409

MUSSELMAN GROCERY CO.
v.
KIDD, DATER & PRICE CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 17, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court, Berrien County; Orville W. Coolidge, Judge.

Action by the Musselman Grocery Company against Kidd, Dater & Price Company, garnishee of Frank B. Ford. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before McALVAY, C. J., and CARPENTER, OSTRANDER, HOOKER, and MOORE, JJ.

[115 N.W. 409]

George M. Valentine and G. W. Bridgman, for appellant.

Smedley & Corwin, for appellee.

MOORE, J.

This case calls for a construction of the so-called ‘sales in bulk act’ (Act No. 223, p. 322, Pub. Acts 1905). The act is assailed for eight different reasons, but all of them revolve about the following propositions which we quote from the brief: ‘First, that if Act No. 223, p. 322, Sess. Laws 1905, of this state is valid that garnishment proceedings do not lie for its enforcement; second, that the said act violates section 32 of article 6 of the Constitution of this state, which provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; third, that the act is in violation of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the federal Constitution, which provides that no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty,

[115 N.W. 410]

or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ As to the last two of these propositions, though argued at length by counsel, we think it unnecessary to discuss them further than to say we are quite content with what was said in Spurr v. Travis, 145 Mich. 721, 108 N. W. 1090,116 Am. St. Rep. 330.

We then come to the question, will garnishment proceedings lie for the enforcement of the law? Counsel say the answer should be in the negative, because of the provisions of section 3, which reads: ‘Any purchaser, transferee or assignee, who shall not conform to the provisions of this act, shall, upon application of any of the creditors of the seller, transferror or assignor, become a receiver and be held accountable to such creditors for all the goods, wares, merchandise and fixtures that have come into his possession by virtue of such sale, transfer or assignment; provided, however, that any purchaser, transferee or assignee, who shall conform to the...