Duryea v. Raymond

Michigan Supreme Court

Duryea v. Raymond

109 N.W. 851, 146 Mich. 488, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 935

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 3, 1906

DocketDocket No. 30

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 N.W. 851 (Duryea v. Raymond) 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

Duryea v. Raymond, 109 N.W. 851, 146 Mich. 488, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 935 (Mich. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

The question which this record presents is whether an affidavit in garnishment, made by an attorney, which states that the plaintiff (not the affiant) is justly apprehensive of a loss of the debt unless a writ of garnishment issue, is sufficient' to confer jurisdiction to issue the writ, or subject to amendment. These questions must be answered in the negative, on the authority of Weimeister v. Manville, 44 Mich. 408. That case is in point, was decided a quarter of a century ago, and has never been modified, although it was distinguished [489]*489from the case then under consideration in Williams v. Stock Board, 99 Mich. 80.

The circuit judge followed the ruling in Weimeister v. Manville, and his judgment is affirmed.

Grant, Blair, Ostrander, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

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

Montgomery, J.

The question which this record presents is whether an affidavit in garnishment, made by an attorney, which states that the plaintiff (not the affiant) is justly apprehensive of a loss of the debt unless a writ of garnishment issue, is sufficient' to confer jurisdiction to issue the writ, or subject to amendment. These questions must be answered in the negative, on the authority of Weimeister v. Manville, 44 Mich. 408. That case is in point, was decided a quarter of a century ago, and has never been modified, although it was distinguished [489]*489from the case then under consideration in Williams v. Stock Board, 99 Mich. 80.

The circuit judge followed the ruling in Weimeister v. Manville, and his judgment is affirmed.

Grant, Blair, Ostrander, and Hooker, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.W. 851, 146 Mich. 488, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duryea-v-raymond-mich-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack