BANKS AND BANKING-BANK DEPOSITS AND THE N.I.L.

Authors

Abstract

Plaintiff sued H and W and a writ of garnishment was issued against B who filed a disclosure of an indebtedness owing to H and W as joint creditors. W was later dropped from the case by a voluntary non-suit. Shortly after such dismissal, W applied to B for payment of the debt, but payment was refused because of the outstanding garnishment. B, however, expressed to W an intention, perhaps even an assurance, to honor such application when freed of the garnishment. That garnishment was dismissed several days later, but in the meantime another writ of garnishment in the pending suit was served upon B. Judgment in the main action was rendered against H, and on the garnishment hearing it developed that B had not paid W because at the date of application for payment the first garnishment writ was outstanding and had not made payment upon dismissal of that writ because the second writ had been served before release of the first; but that B considered the money as belonging to W. The trial court entered judgment for B, the garnishee defendant, the fund in B's hands being considered as W's, on the proofs presented.

Recommended Citation

BANKS AND BANKING-BANK DEPOSITS AND THE N.I.L., 42 Mich. L. Rev. 701 (1944).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol42/iss4/9