Union Bank v. Hanish

Michigan Supreme Court

Union Bank v. Hanish

56 N.W. 768, 97 Mich. 404, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 897

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 10, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 N.W. 768 (Union Bank v. Hanish) 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

Union Bank v. Hanish, 56 N.W. 768, 97 Mich. 404, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 897 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

McGrath, J.

Defendant was indebted to the Standard Gig Saddle Co. That company assigned the account to plaintiffs, who, on June 24, 1891, notified defendant of the assignment.' On July 13, 1891, A. commenced suit against plaintiffs’ assignor,, and garnished defendant. No summons to show cause was issued in that proceeding, but, notwithstanding, defendant paid over the amount. It is conceded that the garnishment proceedings are invalid, but .it is insisted that, in view of other acts of the assignor and assignees after notice of the assignment, defendant was in doubt as to the fact of assignment, and that plaintiffs were bound to dispel that doubt; otherwise they were estopped.

The proceedings in garnishment being absolutely void, it was immaterial whether notice of the assignment had or had not been given. If a garnishee wrongfully assumes to be the debtor of the principal defendant, the proceeding will not protect him against his true creditor. Mental confusion as to the ownership of the claim did not justify defendant in paying over the money in a void proceeding. Hebel v. Insurance Co., 33 Mich. 400; Hirth v. Pfeifle, 42 Id. 31; Tabor v. Van Vranken, 39 Id. 793; Hosley v. Scott, 59 Id. 420; Hitchcock v. Miller, 48 Id. 603.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Hooker, C. J., Long and Grant, JJ., concurred. Montgomery, J., did not sit.

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

McGrath, J.

Defendant was indebted to the Standard Gig Saddle Co. That company assigned the account to plaintiffs, who, on June 24, 1891, notified defendant of the assignment.' On July 13, 1891, A. commenced suit against plaintiffs’ assignor,, and garnished defendant. No summons to show cause was issued in that proceeding, but, notwithstanding, defendant paid over the amount. It is conceded that the garnishment proceedings are invalid, but .it is insisted that, in view of other acts of the assignor and assignees after notice of the assignment, defendant was in doubt as to the fact of assignment, and that plaintiffs were bound to dispel that doubt; otherwise they were estopped.

The proceedings in garnishment being absolutely void, it was immaterial whether notice of the assignment had or had not been given. If a garnishee wrongfully assumes to be the debtor of the principal defendant, the proceeding will not protect him against his true creditor. Mental confusion as to the ownership of the claim did not justify defendant in paying over the money in a void proceeding. Hebel v. Insurance Co., 33 Mich. 400; Hirth v. Pfeifle, 42 Id. 31; Tabor v. Van Vranken, 39 Id. 793; Hosley v. Scott, 59 Id. 420; Hitchcock v. Miller, 48 Id. 603.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs.

Hooker, C. J., Long and Grant, JJ., concurred. Montgomery, J., did not sit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.W. 768, 97 Mich. 404, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-bank-v-hanish-mich-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack