The Detroit times., 1912-10-21
WOULD AMEND PRESENT
LAW OF GARNISHMEnT
(Co.ti.ued from First PaE.,.

services; but the practice Of those en-
ployers / have counseled not to with
hold the exempt amount. i under
stand, il not universally followed. The
company for which l have for many
years been attorney has upon py rec
omme ndation followed a course which
think Is quite exceptional In the
case of employees worthy OF confidence
(Which Is nearly every case) not only
the amount exempt has been promptly
paid as IL no writ OF garnishment had
been served. but even the amount not
exempt; and j do not now remember OF
lost by trusting the employe TO abide
by the final issue OF the principal suit.
In a few other cases only the amount
not exempt has been withheld.
OF course, In any amendment to the
law OF garnishment the interests OF
creditors should be considered. At pres
ent the plaintiff must advance fees at
the risk OF losing same II disclosure
reveals no Indebtedness. He must then
watch his case carefully to prevent 4
from being dismissed through some
default
Ny proposed amendment would zeem
TO work not only TO the advantage or
the employer and wage Garner. but also
OF the creditor. The natural operation
OF the law. as amended, would be
somewhat as follows: Printed forms
would soon be available for the de-
mand to the employer and wage earn
er, which the creditor could deliver
without expense. The notice being
served. the employer and wage earn
er would each have information of the
amount claimed The former would
naturally give the latter an immediate
opportunity to explain. and IL tas In
most cases would happen) the wuge
Garner acknowledged the debt. he could
within the six days before which suit
In garnishment could be brought eth
er make q satisfactory settlement with
the creditor or authorize the employer
to pay the creditor the excess over
his exemptions: unless. OF course. such
excess was more than the amount
claimed to be due, I'm which case that
amount only would be paid.
In this way the whole matter would
be settled in most cases without re-
course to the court.
Tho following form OF notice based
on that used in Illinois Is suggested:
DEMAND IN GARNIsHMENT.
Detroit, Mich, Oct. 3. 1912.
To Jones q Brown, employers,
and James Smith. wage Garner:
hereby demand Of you the sum of
ten dollars for medical services to
said wage Garner out OF moneys
due, or which may become due to
said wage Garner as wages. as pro-
vided by law, under Public Acts
No. IL, session OF 1913.
c. o. Lectum. OF Detroit, Mich,
is hereby authorized TO receive and
receipt for the same; %os,,u "
state OF Michigan.
County OF Wayne,
So:
, being duly sworn,
deposes and says that he served
the above demand notice by de-
livering a copy thereof to above
named employer and the above
named wage Garner on the...'..'.
Subscribed and sworn TO before
this . day Of ......, 1s...
.... Clerk. ........
A provision such as tho proposed
amc ndment contemplates would occas-
ion loss to no interested party. al
though IL would naturally reduce the
amount OF fees TO be divided among
constables and. except whore fees go
into the public treasury. justices; Ahy
amendment TO a long-established law
requires careful consideration from
many points of view and the follow
ing biii IL therefore submitted as pre-
iiminary draft. The purpose is clear
and ! modestly invite sugRestions Tor
the perfection Of the amendment
The matter IN full face IL new;
The People OF the state OF Mich
igan enact.
Section l. That section one OF
act number one hundred thirty
seven OF the session laws OF eight
cen hundred forty-nine. entitled
AN act TO authorize proceedings
against garnIshees and for other
purposes" being section nine hum
dred ninety OF the complied laws OF
eighteen hundred ninety-seven. az
amended by act number one hum
dred seventy-seven. of public acts
rame n hereby amended 20 ~ 90
-. -. |.II...| ... .|. N .I||||. n