Dunn v. Detroit Savings Bank

77 N.W. 6, 118 Mich. 547, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1048
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided November 15, 1898·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). 1. The amendment was allowable. 2 How. Stat. § 7631; Newell v. Blair, 7 Mich. 103; Drake v. Railway Co., 69 Mich. 168 (13 Am. St. Rep. 382); Rock v. Collins, 99 Wis. 630. It is true that the issues had been submitted to the court on February 9th, but it was within the power of the court to open the case and allow an amendment at any time before judgment, upon due notice to the opposite party.

2. The bank was not estopped by its first' disclosure that, at the time of the service of the writ, it had no money in its hands belonging to Swan. It did not have at the time of the actual service. The court held that the exhibition to the cashier of the original writ, and the service of a copy of the affidavit, instead of a copy of the writ, constituted a good service. The court was correct in permitting the garnishee to show the exact condition of things at the time of the alleged defective service.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Dunn v. Detroit Savings Bank, 77 N.W. 6, 118 Mich. 547, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1048 (Mich. 1898).

77 N.W. 6 (Dunn v. Detroit Savings Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Holmquist v. Sorenson
257 N.W. 732 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
M. M. Gantz Co. v. Alexander
242 N.W. 813 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1932)
Shank v. Lippman
227 N.W. 710 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1929)