Case Name: CAMP v. WILSON
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-05-16
Citations: 263 Mich. 164
Docket Number: Docket No. 94, Calendar No. 37,138
Parties: CAMP v. WILSON.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 263
Pages: 164–166

Head Matter:
CAMP v. WILSON.
1. Garnishment — Process—Service on Nonresident Garnishee.
Where service on garnishee defendant residing out of county in which suit in garnishment was brought was had in compliance with statute, service-was good (3 Comp. Laws 1929, §§14857, 14892).
'2. Appeal and Error — Finding op Fact.
Trial court’s finding of fact supported by evidence is not disturbed, on appeal.
Appeal from Allegan; Miles (Fred T.), J.
Submitted April 11, 1933.
(Docket No. 94, Calendar No. 37,138.)
Decided May 16, 1933.
Rehearing denied August 29, 1933.
Garnishment proceedings by James Camp against Woodrow Wilson and Carl Hunt, principal defendants, and National Casualty Company, a Michigan corporation, garnishee defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. Garnishee defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Leo W. Hoffman and Clare E. Hoffman, for plaintiff.
Dale Souter and Fred N. Searl, for garnishee defendant.

Opinion:
Potter, J.
Plaintiff recovered judgment in the circuit court for Allegan county against the principal defendants which was affirmed. 258 Mich. 38. Plaintiff, after the cause was remanded to the Allegan circuit court, caused a writ of garnishment to be issued directed to the garnishee defendant. This writ of garnishment was served in Wayne county. Defendants contend this was not a good service because out of the jurisdiction of the court. The trial court held the service good. The garnishee defendant appeals, claiming the service of the writ of garnishment was not good because it was served in Wayne county, and the garnishee defendant is not liable because of want of notice of the accident from the principal defendant prior to the cancellation of its policy. The writ of garnishment was authorized by 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14857, and the service in Wayne county was in compliance with 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14892. There was some dispute as to the date the garnishee defendant was notified by the principal defendant that suit had been commenced against him, but it fairly appears such notice was given by the principal defendant to the agent of the garnishee defendant immediately after service of summons on the defendant "Wilson in the principal case. We see no reason for disturbing the conclusions of the trial court upon this question of fact.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Sharpe, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.