Case Name: Edwards & Sanborn vs. Hughes, et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1870-04
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. xlvi
Docket Number: 
Parties: Edwards & Sanborn vs. Hughes, et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: xlvi–xlvii

Head Matter:
Edwards & Sanborn vs. Hughes, et al.
Where a party is able to make a case for attachment against the property of one only, of several debtors, he is not to allege a joint wrong by them all; and in case he does so, the attachment, so far as it holds the property of. the parties innocent of fraud, may be dis«' solved.
Ceitiorari to Circuit Court Commissioner of Genesee County.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Cooley, J.
Plaintiffs sued out an attachment from the Circuit Court against Hughes, Reams & Williams, who, as partners, had become indebted to them. The affidavit for attachment was made by Sanborn, and it alleged that the affiant had reason to believe, and did believe, that the defendants were about to dispose of certain of their property with intent to defraud their creditors. Considerable property belonging to Hughes & Reams was seized by virtue of the writ, but Williams, it seems, had ceased to be a. partner with the other defendants, and no service was made upon him or his property. Hughes petitioned the Circuit Court Commissioner for a dissolution of the attachment, claiming to have acquired all the right of Reams in the property, by purchase since the attachment. On a hearing before the Commissioner, the plaintiffs were able to show strong grounds for an attachment as against Reams, but none at all as against the other defendants. The Commissioner dissolved the attachment, and the plaintiffs removed the proceedings to this Court. Plaintiffs claim that the proceedings should be reversed, because, among other reasons, Hughes could not lawfully apply for a dissolution of the attachment without joining his co-defendants with him, or, at least, the other defendant, whose property was taken. Hughes, on the other hand, claims that an attachment whieh-proceeds against persons as guilty of a contemplated joint fraud, when two of them are wholly innocent, is entirely unwarranted, and that either of the parties is at liberty to apply separately to have the wrong which is done him corrected.
Held, That by the statute governing this case (Laws of 1861 p. 480) when the plaintiff is able to make a case against one of several debtors, whether they are indebted as partners or otherwise, he is not to allege a joint wrong by them all, but must set forth his case in the affidavit according to the facts. The proceedings should be affirmed with costs.