TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

M. M. Gantz Co. v. Alexander

M. M. Gantz Co. v. Alexander.

M. M. Gantz Co. v. Alexander, 242 N.W. 813 (Mich. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 6, 1932
Docket
Nos. 49, Calendar No. 35,646.
Judges
Potter, Clark, McDonald, Sharpe, North, Lead, Wiest, Butzel
Citations
242 N.W. 813258 Mich. 6951932 Mich. LEXIS 1338

Opinion of the Court — Potter

Potter, J.

Plaintiff brought suit against defendant by summons. Garnishment proceedings were instituted against the Peoples State Trust & Savings Bank. Disclosure was filed July 15, 1929, showing liability to the principal defendant of $554.99. This disclosure was sworn to by Archie E. Allen, auditor of the bank. A motion was filed by plaintiff to enter judgment against the bank upon the disclosure for the amount disclosed. On the same day a motion was filed by the garnishee defendant for leave to file an amended disclosure, alleging an error had been made in the first disclosure, and, as a matter of fact, at the time the original disclosure was made *697 the hank was not indebted to the principal defendant, bnt the principal defendant was indebted to the bank. Both motions came on for hearing at the same time. Both were argued. The trial court found the first disclosure was erroneous and purely a mistake, permitted an amendment of the disclosure, denied the motion for a judgment, and permitted the garnishee defendant to file an amended disclosure which in effect amounted to denial of judgment for plaintiff. The general statute of amendments (3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14144 et seq.)

is broad and is to be liberally construed.

Peacock v. Railway Co., 208 Mich. 403 (8 A. L. R. 964);

La Plante v. DuPont, 223 Mich. 343 (31 A. L. R. 694, 23 N. C. C. A. 1);

Wabash R. Co.

v. Marshall, 224 Mich. 593 ;

Gillen v. Wakefield State Bank, 246 Mich. 158 . The right to permit amendments, in accordance with the statute, is vested in the sound judgment and discretion of the trial court. It aims to abolish technical errors in proceedings and to have cases disposed of as nearly as possible in accordance with the substantial rights of the parties. We think the action of the trial court was fairly within his discretion.

Drake v. Railway Co., 69 Mich. 168 ( 13 Am. St. Rep. 382 );

Barber v. Howd, 85 Mich. 221 ;

Dunn v. Detroit Savings Bank, 118 Mich. 547;

Gerow v. Hyde, 131 Mich. 442 .

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Sharpe, North, Lead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1933: 11934: 11935: 11943: 11944: 12010: 12013: 12014: 119332026peak 1933 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency850 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013)
  2. DeCosta v. Gossage782 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. 2010)
  3. Furr v. McLeod848 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)
  4. L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Falls11 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 1943)
  5. Johnson v. Fremont Canning Co.259 N.W. 660 (Mich. 1935)
  6. Gratiot Lumber & Coal Co. v. Lubinski16 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 1944)

Most recent

  1. Furr v. McLeod848 N.W.2d 465 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)
  2. Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency850 N.W.2d 667 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013)
  3. DeCosta v. Gossage782 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. 2010)
  4. Gratiot Lumber & Coal Co. v. Lubinski16 N.W.2d 112 (Mich. 1944)
  5. L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corp. v. Falls11 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. 1943)
  6. Johnson v. Fremont Canning Co.259 N.W. 660 (Mich. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 8

DepthCaseCited by
Gillen v. Wakefield State Bank, 224 N.W. 761 (Mich. 1929) 30
Peacock v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., 175 N.W. 580 (Mich. 1919) 24
Drake v. Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Ry. Co., 37 N.W. 70 (Mich. 1888) 22
Wabash Ry. Co. v. Marshall, 195 N.W. 134 (Mich. 1923) 9
La Plante v. Du Pont, 193 N.W. 820 (Mich. 1923) 8
Barber v. Howd, 48 N.W. 539 (Mich. 1891) 3
Dunn v. Detroit Sav. Bank, 77 N.W. 6 (Mich. 1898) 3
Gerow v. Hyde, 91 N.W. 615 (Mich. 1902) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list