¶1It appears in the record beyond^ any controversy that the demand owing by defendants, and which the plaintiff seeks to recover from them as garnishees, was due not to the principal defendant alone, but to him and another person with whom he was joint contractor for building a church. There was therefore no ground for a recovery, and the judgment in favor of defendants must be affirmed with costs.
42 Mich. 74
Markham v. Gehan
Decided October 30, 1879
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1879-10-30
Case made from Kent. Assumpsit and trover appealed from before a justice. The action was brought by Markham against Thomas J. Fitzgerald, a building contractor; -and James Gehan, William Farrell and Denis McCarthy, a building committee who had contracted with him, were brought in as garnishees. . Their disclosure showed that the contract was made with Fitzgerald and J. W. GriswiPld jointly. The garnishees were discharged with a judgment for costs in their favor.
Key passage — most relied on by later courts
““It appears in the record beyond any controversy that the demand owing by defendants, and which the plaintiff seeks to recover from them as garnishees, was due not to the principal defendant alone, but to him and another person with whom he was joint contractor for building a church. There was therefore no ground for a recovery, and the judgment in favor of defendants must be affirmed with costs.””
quoted by 1 later decision, including Meier v. Blair
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1879-10-30
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1938
6 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →