Warren v. Murphy
| Decision Date | 06 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 26.,26. |
| Citation | 243 N.W. 23,258 Mich. 459 |
| Parties | WARREN v. MURPHY. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Fred S. Lamb, Judge.
Garnishment proceedings by John W. Warren against Patrick J. Murphy. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Frank C. Golden and Donald A. Wallace, both of Detroit, for appellant.
Oxtoby, Robison & Hull, of Detroit (Leo I. Franklin, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
Sarah Doherty, over seventy-five years of age, was a sister of Anna T. Murphy, now deceased, formerly the wife of Patrick J. Murphy, an attorney, who is the defendant and appellant herein. In a suit brought by Mrs. Doherty against the estate of Anna T. Murphy in which she claimed an interest, the decree provided that the estate pay to her an amount certain, and, in addition thereto, $100 per month during her lifetime; that the payment thereof be secured by a surety bond to be executed by Patrick J. Murphy, both as administrator and in his individual capacity.
Murphy and Mrs. Doherty had also entered into a contract prepared by Murphy and known as Exhibit A, wherein Mrs. Doherty agreed to make him the beneficiary in a policy of insurance in a benevolent association, in which she was insured. He agreed that: ‘In the event of the illness of the said Sarah Doherty the said Patrick J. Murphy agrees to furnish the said Sarah M. Doherty with appropriate medical care and attention.’
In the instant case, Patrick J. Murphy has appealed from a judgment rendered against him in garnishment proceedings ancillary to a principal suit against Mrs. Doherty in which a judgment of $500 was rendered against her.
The testimony shows that Mrs. Doherty was in great need of medical care and attention, and that John W. Warren, plaintiff, furnished it to her; that Murphy not only knew plaintiff was attenting Mrs. Doherty, but told him that she ‘must be cared for.’ Plaintiff attempted to show the reasonable value of the services rendered. Defendant objected, stating that the issue was solely one of garnishment, and the court ruled that the judgment of $500 rendered in a suit brought to recover for the services obviated further proof in regard to the reasonableness of the charges. Although Murphy first disclosed an indebtedness to Mrs. Doherty, he subsequently amended his disclosure to show nothing was due her. A judgment was rendered against him, both in the common pleas court and...
To continue reading
Request your trial