E. H. Chase & Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

E. H. Chase & Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge

118 Mich. 358

DecidedOctober 18, 1898

StatusPublished

This text of 118 Mich. 358 (E. H. Chase & Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge) 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

E. H. Chase & Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 118 Mich. 358 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Moore, J.

This is an application to require the circuit judge to vacate an order quashing a writ of attachment issued in a suit wherein relator is plaintiff and Abraham B. Kaufman is defendant. The debt from defendant was not due at the time the writ was sued out. It is claimed on the part of the respondent that the writ was properly quashed; citing Howell v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, 88 Mich. 361, and McCrea v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, 100 Mich. 375. The writ of attachment was based upon three affidavits. These affidavits, in addition to showing such facts as would have been sufficient, if the debt had been due, to entitle the relator to the writ, showed in detail such facts and circumstances as to establish, by a reasonable and logical inference, fraud upon the part of the defendant, and showed the necessity for the issuance of the writ of attachment before the debt came due. These affidavits supplied the proof of facts and circumstances which were lacking in the case of Howell v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, supra, and McCrea v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, supra. We think the affidavits comply with the requirements of the statute (3 How. Stat. § 8016a), as construed in Mosher v. Bay Circuit Judge, 108 Mich. 503.

The writ will issue as prayed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Moore, J.

This is an application to require the circuit judge to vacate an order quashing a writ of attachment issued in a suit wherein relator is plaintiff and Abraham B. Kaufman is defendant. The debt from defendant was not due at the time the writ was sued out. It is claimed on the part of the respondent that the writ was properly quashed; citing Howell v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, 88 Mich. 361, and McCrea v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, 100 Mich. 375. The writ of attachment was based upon three affidavits. These affidavits, in addition to showing such facts as would have been sufficient, if the debt had been due, to entitle the relator to the writ, showed in detail such facts and circumstances as to establish, by a reasonable and logical inference, fraud upon the part of the defendant, and showed the necessity for the issuance of the writ of attachment before the debt came due. These affidavits supplied the proof of facts and circumstances which were lacking in the case of Howell v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, supra, and McCrea v. Muskegon Circuit Judge, supra. We think the affidavits comply with the requirements of the statute (3 How. Stat. § 8016a), as construed in Mosher v. Bay Circuit Judge, 108 Mich. 503.

The writ will issue as prayed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

118 Mich. 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/e-h-chase-co-v-wayne-circuit-judge-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack