Case Name: Carrie Noyes v. Mary E. Foster
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1882-04-25
Citations: 48 Mich. 273
Docket Number: 
Parties: Carrie Noyes v. Mary E. Foster.
Judges: Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
Carrie Noyes v. Mary E. Foster.
Garnishment of claim pending suit therefor.
A claim pending before a justice of the peace cannot be garnished in a proceeding before another justice.
Error to "Washtenaw.
Submitted Apr. 18.
Decided Apr. 25.
Assumpsit before a justice ou a promissory note. Defendant Foster pleaded the general issue. The suit was adjourned from time to time and when brought to trial defendant filed a plea puis darrein setting forth that she had been garnished in a suit against the plaintiff before another justice. The justice disregarded the plea and gave judgment for plaintiff which, on appeal to the circuit, was affirmed. Defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Sawyer <& Knowlton for appellant.
A garnishee is ■ chargeable from the service of summons even though the principal defendant has already begun suit for the debt: see Howell v. Freeman 3 Mass. 121; Locke v. Tippets 7 Mass. 149; Thorndike v. De Wolf 6 Pick. 120; Foster v. Jones 15 Mass. 185; Kidd v. Shepherd 4 Mass. 238; Trombly v. Clark 13 Vt. 118; unless the suit has gone beyond the stage where recovery in garnishment can be pleaded: Foster v. Dudley 30 N. H. 463; but see Gridley v. Harraden 14 Mass. 497; Burnham v. Folsom 5 N. H. 566; Wallace v. M’ Connell 13 Pet. 136 ; a plea puis darrein of the pendency of garnishment proceedings suspends the action: Near v. Mitchell 23 Mich. 384; Johnson v. Kibbee 36 Mich. 269; and the plea may be made at any time before the case is submitted : Browne v. Beardsley 3 Cai. 172; as well in a justice’s court as in one of record: Resseguie v. Brownson 4 Barb. 541; West v. Stanley 1 Hill 69; and plaintiff should demur or join issue; Morgan v. Dyer 10 Johns. 161.
F. D. Kinne for appellee.
A demand in suit cannot be reached by garnishment unless by statutory permission:' Bingham v. Smith 5 Ala. 651; Wood v. Lake 13 Wis. 84.

Opinion:
Marston, J.
We need not critically examine the several provisions of the statute relating to garnishee proceedings in justice's court, as we are clearly of opinion that the reason advanced in Sievers v. Woodburn Sarven Wheel Co. 43 Mich. 275, against garnishing a judgment rendered by a justice, is equally applicable here.
The judgment must be affirmed with costs.
Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.