Poma v. Peoples Wayne County Bank

Michigan Supreme Court

Poma v. Peoples Wayne County Bank

241 N.W. 888, 257 Mich. 696, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 899

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1932

DocketDocket No. 177, Calendar No. 36,146.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 241 N.W. 888 (Poma v. Peoples Wayne County Bank) 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

Poma v. Peoples Wayne County Bank, 241 N.W. 888, 257 Mich. 696, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 899 (Mich. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, C. J.

Michele Poma, the plaintiff, sued defendant bank for a deposit evidenced by savings passbook. The defense is that at the suit of Associates Investment Company, a corporation, as plaintiff, against Poma, in which such plaintiff had judgment, defendant was garnishee of Poma and disclosed the indebtedness to him, upon which and pur *697 suant to statute judgment was rendered against defendant as garnishee, which judgment defendant paid. The garnishment proceedings are conceded regular except the affidavit for the writ. The affidavit recites that “Howard C. Chilson of Detroit, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is attorney for and makes this affidavit for and in behalf of,” etc., that “deponent further says,” etc., usual recitals, and the affidavit is subscribed and sworn to by Joseph C. G-lazer. The misrecital “Howard C. Chilson” was urged and held to be a fatal defect. Plaintiff had judgment. Defendant has appealed.

It has been said many times that garnishment is a harsh remedy and the statute must be followed strictly. It has also been said many times that proceedings for substituted service must be strictly regular, the statutes must be strictly complied with. Yet, in case of an affidavit of publication, containing recital “Fred B. Lee of said county, being duly sworn, ’ ’ etc., and subscribed and sworn to by Charles II. Lee, it was held rightly in Torrans v. Hicks, 32 Mich. 307, opinion by Mr. Justice Cooley, that the misrecital was apparently clerical error and not fatal, and it was said:

“But this affidavit is in legal effect the same, we think, that it would have been if in the body of it there had been no recital of any name as that of an affiant. ’ ’

Howard C. Chilson was not the affiant, and recital of his name is clerical error, so it is overlooked, and the affidavit treated as though no name of an affiant were there recited.

The affidavit then reads,'“-, being duly sworn, deposes and says,” etc. But who deposes and says? The answer follows in next paragraph of the *698 affidavit, “deponent further says.” So the entire affidavit is by deponent, Joseph C. Glazer, who subscribed and was sworn. The affidavit is not fatally defective, and, if perfection of record were desired, it might be amended.

Reversed, with costs, and remanded with direction to enter judgment for defendant.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.. Fead, J., did not sit.

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

Clark, C. J.

Michele Poma, the plaintiff, sued defendant bank for a deposit evidenced by savings passbook. The defense is that at the suit of Associates Investment Company, a corporation, as plaintiff, against Poma, in which such plaintiff had judgment, defendant was garnishee of Poma and disclosed the indebtedness to him, upon which and pur *697 suant to statute judgment was rendered against defendant as garnishee, which judgment defendant paid. The garnishment proceedings are conceded regular except the affidavit for the writ. The affidavit recites that “Howard C. Chilson of Detroit, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is attorney for and makes this affidavit for and in behalf of,” etc., that “deponent further says,” etc., usual recitals, and the affidavit is subscribed and sworn to by Joseph C. G-lazer. The misrecital “Howard C. Chilson” was urged and held to be a fatal defect. Plaintiff had judgment. Defendant has appealed.

It has been said many times that garnishment is a harsh remedy and the statute must be followed strictly. It has also been said many times that proceedings for substituted service must be strictly regular, the statutes must be strictly complied with. Yet, in case of an affidavit of publication, containing recital “Fred B. Lee of said county, being duly sworn, ’ ’ etc., and subscribed and sworn to by Charles II. Lee, it was held rightly in Torrans v. Hicks, 32 Mich. 307, opinion by Mr. Justice Cooley, that the misrecital was apparently clerical error and not fatal, and it was said:

“But this affidavit is in legal effect the same, we think, that it would have been if in the body of it there had been no recital of any name as that of an affiant. ’ ’

Howard C. Chilson was not the affiant, and recital of his name is clerical error, so it is overlooked, and the affidavit treated as though no name of an affiant were there recited.

The affidavit then reads,'“-, being duly sworn, deposes and says,” etc. But who deposes and says? The answer follows in next paragraph of the *698 affidavit, “deponent further says.” So the entire affidavit is by deponent, Joseph C. Glazer, who subscribed and was sworn. The affidavit is not fatally defective, and, if perfection of record were desired, it might be amended.

Reversed, with costs, and remanded with direction to enter judgment for defendant.

McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.. Fead, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 N.W. 888, 257 Mich. 696, 1932 Mich. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poma-v-peoples-wayne-county-bank-mich-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack