Farwell v. Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Farwell v. Circuit Judge

1 McGrath 33, 62 McGrath 316

DecidedJuly 1, 1886

StatusPublished

This text of 1 McGrath 33 (Farwell v. 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

Farwell v. Circuit Judge, 1 McGrath 33, 62 McGrath 316 (Mich. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

To vacate an order quashing a writ of garnishment, where in a suit against two defendants, the affidavit averred an indebtedness due to one of them and where the principal defendants and the garnishee defendant were general partners, and the plaintiff was a special partner in said firm, and, in order to ascertain the relative rights of the partners, an accounting must be had.

Denied July 1, 1886.

Held, that under How. Stat. Sec 8056, prior to its amendment by Act No. 128, Laws of 1885, the first reason was a sufficient ground for quashing the writ, citing Ford vs. Dry Dock Co., [36]*3650 M., 358, and if the amendment changed the rule, the second reason was sufficient, for a claim to be subject to garnishment, must be one for which the principal defendant can maintain an action at law.

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

To vacate an order quashing a writ of garnishment, where in a suit against two defendants, the affidavit averred an indebtedness due to one of them and where the principal defendants and the garnishee defendant were general partners, and the plaintiff was a special partner in said firm, and, in order to ascertain the relative rights of the partners, an accounting must be had.

Denied July 1, 1886.

Held, that under How. Stat. Sec 8056, prior to its amendment by Act No. 128, Laws of 1885, the first reason was a sufficient ground for quashing the writ, citing Ford vs. Dry Dock Co., [36]*3650 M., 358, and if the amendment changed the rule, the second reason was sufficient, for a claim to be subject to garnishment, must be one for which the principal defendant can maintain an action at law.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 McGrath 33, 62 McGrath 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farwell-v-circuit-judge-mich-1886.