Ford v. Detroit Dry Dock Co.

15 N.W. 509, 50 Mich. 358, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 806
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 18, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 15 N.W. 509 (Ford v. Detroit Dry Dock Co.) 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
Ford v. Detroit Dry Dock Co., 15 N.W. 509, 50 Mich. 358, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 806 (Mich. 1883).

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff recovered before a justice a joint judgment against four defendants, and garnished the present defendant. An answer was put in admitting indebtedness in small amounts to a part of the defendants, each individually, but no joint indebtedness to any portion or to all of them. It also relied on their being householders.

In the circuit court, to which the garnishee case was appealed, a-judgment was rendered against the present defendant for the excess of the money due by the garnishee beyond the statutory allowance to each defendant as a householder. Plaintiff brings error, claiming that he should have had judgment for the aggregate.

As we have found nothing in the statute which allows garnishee proceedings to reach property or debts belonging to only a part of the principal defendants, and as it is manifestly required by the statute that the defendant or defendants in the principal suit shall be the person or persons in whose right the garnishee plaintiff is allowed to prosecute the garnishee defendants, there is in our opinion no foundation for this complaint. These proceedings are purely statutory, and cannot be extended by construction. It never [360]*360was designed, by means of these proceedings, to make further proceedings necessary to determine the relative rights of various defendants, who might be entitled to contribution from their co-defendants for an excess of property taken beyond their shares.

The plaintiff has no reason to complain of the judgment, and as defendant has not apj>ealed, it must be affirmed with costs against plaintiff.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. AT & G. CO., INC.
239 N.W.2d 614 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1976)
Robert W. Irwin Co. v. Sterling, Inc.
14 F.R.D. 250 (W.D. Michigan, 1953)
Cold Metal Process Co. v. McLouth Steel Corporation
126 F.2d 185 (Sixth Circuit, 1942)
Edward Thompson Co. v. Maynard
256 N.W. 817 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
W. H. Warner Coal Co. v. Nelson
169 N.W. 852 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1918)
Roof v. Blake
153 N.W. 3 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
Olcott v. Guerinck
10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 131 (Cuyahoga Circuit Court, 1899)
Olcott v. Guerinck
19 Ohio C.C. 32 (Ohio Circuit Courts, 1899)
Foster v. Kent Circuit Judge
74 N.W. 480 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1898)
Siegel, Cooper & Co. v. Schueck
47 N.E. 855 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1897)
Meigs v. Weller
51 N.W. 681 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1892)
Perea v. Colorado National Bank
6 N.M. 1 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1891)
Wilson v. Reilly
46 N.W. 439 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1890)
Milwaukee Bridge & Iron Works v. Brevoort
41 N.W. 215 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)
Farwell v. Chambers
28 N.W. 859 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)
Isabelle v. Iron Cliffs Co.
23 N.W. 613 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 N.W. 509, 50 Mich. 358, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ford-v-detroit-dry-dock-co-mich-1883.