Van Bianchi v. Wayne Circuit Judge
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Grant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. Receivers may be garnished, by leave of the court. Cohnen v. Sweenie, 105 Mich. 643 ( 63 N. W. 641 ); Hudson v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 114 Mich. 116 ( 72 N. W. 162 , 68 Am. St. Rep. 465 ). We see no reason why the receiver appointed under the statute above cited is not subject to garnishment, as well as any other receiver.
*463
2. The answer of the garnishee states that there is a personal claim allowed in favor of the principal defendant of $186.38, that he has in his hands sufficient to pay a dividend of 28 per cent., and that $52.18 is due. Whether the dividend due upon the other claim can be garnished, under Markham v. Gehan, 42 Mich. 74 ( 3 N. W. 262 ), will depend on the proofs.
The writ must issue.
The other Justices concurred.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.