Case Name: Union National Bank v. Erastus Peck, Acting Circuit Judge of Wayne County
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1896-06
Citations: 1 Mich. Pr. 12
Docket Number: 
Parties: Union National Bank v. Erastus Peck, Acting Circuit Judge of Wayne County.
Judges: 
Reporter: Practice reports. Cases decided in the Supreme court of Michigan in 1896, in which written opinions were not filed.
Volume: 1
Pages: 12–13

Head Matter:
Union National Bank v. Erastus Peck, Acting Circuit Judge of Wayne County.
Garnishment proceedings — Dismissal OF FOR LACHES IN BRINGING STATUTORY ISSUES TO TRIAL.
The relator applied for mandamus to compel the respondent to vacate an order dismissing, on the motion of the garnishees, the garnishment proceedings instituted against them because of the laches of the plaintiff in failing for more than one year after the entry of judgment against the principal defendants, to bring the statutory issues to trial. An order to show cause was denied.
Sloman, Groesbedc di JioUnson, for relators.

Opinion:
The facts as alleged in the petition for mandamus were as follows:
a — That on May 17, 1894, the relator sued August Rasch and Oscar Rasch in the circuit court for the county of Wayne, and garnished in separate suits Augusta Rich, Frank A. Rasch and Lovina C. Rasch; that the garnishees filed separate disclosures and were examined before a circuit court commissioner, who filed his reports; that two of the garnishees denied all liability, and the third admitted the if&nsfer to her by one of the principal defendants; (her father) of a piece of property' without consideration; that a statutory issue was framed in each case, and demands for the trial of said issues were filed.
6 — That on January 3, 1895, judgment was entered in favor of the relator; that no stay of proceedings was granted.
e — That on April 23, 1890, after four terms of court had passed at which said issue could have been tried, and the same not having been placed on the docket for trial, the garnishees made a joint motion to dismiss the garnishment proceedings, for the reasons hereinbefore set forth.