Case Name: HOUCK v. SHELBY MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1950-05-18
Citations: 327 Mich. 634
Docket Number: Docket No. 42, Calendar No. 44,469
Parties: HOUCK v. SHELBY MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY.
Judges: Boyles, C. J., and Reid, North, Butzel, Carr, Bushnell, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 327
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
HOUCK v. SHELBY MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY.
1. Appeal and Error — Judgment—Insurance—Garnishment.
Affirmance by Supreme Court of judgment against insurer in garnishment proceedings brought against insurer entitled insured to affirmance of judgment in his action against the insurer where basic question in both proceedings is the same.
2. Judgment — Satisfaction—Insurance.
Claim that since submission of appeal of action by insured against insurer under automobile insurance policy the judgment procured against insured by garnishee plaintiff has been paid does not affect insured’s right to affirmance of judgment against insurer but upon remand trial court is directed to enter satisfaction of judgment herein upon payment of plaintiff’s costs by the insurer and filing of satisfactory evidence of insurer’s payment of the judgment in the garnishment case.
Appeal from Oakland; Hartrick (George B.), J.
Submitted October 6, 1949.
(Docket No. 42, Calendar No. 44,469.)
Decided May 18, 1950.
Assumpsit by Howard Houck against Shelby Mutual Casualty Company, on an automobile insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 3 Am Jur, Appeal and Error, § 1166; 30 Am Jur, Judgments,. § 163.
Affirmed and remanded with instructions.
Glenn G. Gillespie, for plaintiff.
Alexander, Gholette, Buchanan, Perkins & Conklin, for defendant.

Opinion:
Dethmers, J.
The basic question in this case is whether defendant is obligated under its policy of insurance issued to plaintiff to pay a judgment entered against him in favor of one Francis for damages sustained by the latter by reason of the negligent operation of plaintiff's motor vehicle. This we answered in the affirmative in garnishment proceedings brought by Francis against this defendant (Francis v. Scheper, 326 Mich 441). Judgment for plaintiff ought, therefore, to be affirmed.
The law applicable to decision in this case and the right of plaintiff to the affirmance of judgment in his favor with costs, to which he unquestionably would have been entitled had the Francis judgment against him remained unpaid, are neither altered nor affected by the claim that, since submission of this case on appeal and after our affirmance of judgment for the plaintiff in the garnishment case, defendant has paid the latter judgment.
Judgment affirmed, with costs in both courts to plaintiff, and cause remanded with directions to the' trial court to enter satisfaction of judgment upon payment of plaintiff's costs by defendant and the filing of satisfactory evidence of defendant's payment of the judgment in the garnishment case.
Boyles, C. J., and Reid, North, Butzel, Carr, Bushnell, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.