Duryea v. Raymond

109 N.W. 851, 146 Mich. 488, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 935
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided December 3, 1906·No. Docket No. 30·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

109 N.W. 851 (Duryea v. Raymond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Butcher v. Cappon & Bertsch Leather Co.
112 N.W. 110 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)