Clarence Hodson & Co. v. Wills Sainte Claire

Michigan Supreme Court

Clarence Hodson & Co. v. Wills Sainte Claire

226 N.W. 817, 248 Mich. 319, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 563

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 7, 1929

DocketDocket No. 107, Calendar No. 34,389.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 226 N.W. 817 (Clarence Hodson & Co. v. Wills Sainte Claire) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarence Hodson & Co. v. Wills Sainte Claire, 226 N.W. 817, 248 Mich. 319, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 563 (Mich. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Fead, J.

Affidavit for writ of garnishment was made August 11th and filed August 12th. Writ of garnishment was issued under date of August 11th, but it recited that the affidavit had been filed in the office of the clerk of court. The affidavit and writ bear corresponding erasures and corrections which indicate simultaneous action upon them. The writ was served August 12th. Garnishee defendant filed disclosure admitting debt to the principal defendant. On trial of the statutory issue before the court without a jury, garnishee defendant challenged the jurisdiction on the ground that the writ had been issued before the affidavit was filed. No testimony was taken.

We think the face of the papers themselves shows that the_date in the writ was merely a clerical error which could be corrected by amendment or disregarded. Wellover v. Soule, 30 Mich. 481; Millard v. Lenawee Circuit Judge, 107 Mich. 134; 28 C. J. p. 224.

Judgment for plaintiff is affirmed.

North, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Fellows took no part in this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Fead, J.

Affidavit for writ of garnishment was made August 11th and filed August 12th. Writ of garnishment was issued under date of August 11th, but it recited that the affidavit had been filed in the office of the clerk of court. The affidavit and writ bear corresponding erasures and corrections which indicate simultaneous action upon them. The writ was served August 12th. Garnishee defendant filed disclosure admitting debt to the principal defendant. On trial of the statutory issue before the court without a jury, garnishee defendant challenged the jurisdiction on the ground that the writ had been issued before the affidavit was filed. No testimony was taken.

We think the face of the papers themselves shows that the_date in the writ was merely a clerical error which could be corrected by amendment or disregarded. Wellover v. Soule, 30 Mich. 481; Millard v. Lenawee Circuit Judge, 107 Mich. 134; 28 C. J. p. 224.

Judgment for plaintiff is affirmed.

North, C. J., and Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Fellows took no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

226 N.W. 817, 248 Mich. 319, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarence-hodson-co-v-wills-sainte-claire-mich-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack