Robertson v. Detroit Pattern Works

Michigan Supreme Court

Robertson v. Detroit Pattern Works

116 N.W. 196, 152 Mich. 612, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 899

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 1, 1908

DocketDocket No. 45

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 116 N.W. 196 (Robertson v. Detroit Pattern Works) 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

Robertson v. Detroit Pattern Works, 116 N.W. 196, 152 Mich. 612, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 899 (Mich. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpenter, J.

The garnishee defendant was appointed by the circuit court for the county of Wayne receiver in a certain suit wherein he and the principal defendants were parties. That suit was tried. It resulted in a final decree requiring the garnishee defendant to pay to the principal defendants in this suit a certain sum of money. It appears that nothing remains to be done except the performance of this decree, viz., the payment of said money. The' question presented by this case is whether plaintiff, a creditor of the principal defendants, has a right without leave of the court to commence garnishment proceedings to secure this fund. The trial court held that he had not and dismissed his proceedings.

[613]*613There is no doubt of the general rule that property in the hands of a receiver is not subject to garnishment except by leave of the court appointing the receiver, which leave was not obtained in this case. But the weight of authority holds that that rule has no application in a case like this where nothing remains to be done except to pay money upon a final decree. Willard v. Decatur, 59 N. H. 137; Smith v. People, 93 Ill. App. 135; Rood on Garnishment, § 32; Dunsmoor v. Furstenfeldt, 88 Cal. 522 (12 L. R. A. 508); Weaver v. Davis, 47 Ill. 235; 20 Cyc. p. 1026. We believe the law to be as stated in these cases. The order dismissing the proceedings was therefore erroneous.

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted.

Grant, O. J., and Blair, Montgomery, and Mc-Alvay, JJ., concurred.

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

Carpenter, J.

The garnishee defendant was appointed by the circuit court for the county of Wayne receiver in a certain suit wherein he and the principal defendants were parties. That suit was tried. It resulted in a final decree requiring the garnishee defendant to pay to the principal defendants in this suit a certain sum of money. It appears that nothing remains to be done except the performance of this decree, viz., the payment of said money. The' question presented by this case is whether plaintiff, a creditor of the principal defendants, has a right without leave of the court to commence garnishment proceedings to secure this fund. The trial court held that he had not and dismissed his proceedings.

[613]*613There is no doubt of the general rule that property in the hands of a receiver is not subject to garnishment except by leave of the court appointing the receiver, which leave was not obtained in this case. But the weight of authority holds that that rule has no application in a case like this where nothing remains to be done except to pay money upon a final decree. Willard v. Decatur, 59 N. H. 137; Smith v. People, 93 Ill. App. 135; Rood on Garnishment, § 32; Dunsmoor v. Furstenfeldt, 88 Cal. 522 (12 L. R. A. 508); Weaver v. Davis, 47 Ill. 235; 20 Cyc. p. 1026. We believe the law to be as stated in these cases. The order dismissing the proceedings was therefore erroneous.

Judgment reversed and a new trial granted.

Grant, O. J., and Blair, Montgomery, and Mc-Alvay, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 N.W. 196, 152 Mich. 612, 1908 Mich. LEXIS 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robertson-v-detroit-pattern-works-mich-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack