Snyder v. Willey

• Decision Date: 11 April 1876
• Citation: 33 Mich. 483
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Henry M. Snyder v. Lewis Willey

33 Mich. 483

Henry M. Snyder v. Lewis Willey

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 11, 1876

Submitted on Briefs January 20, 1876

Error to Ionia Circuit.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Vosper & Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

Mitchel & Pratt, for defendant in error, cited: Inhab., etc., v Eaton, 11 Mass. 375; Moore v. Adams, 8 Ohio 372; Pepper v. Haight, 20 Barb. 429; Foote v Emerson, 10 Vt. 344; Browing v. Morris, Cowp., 790; Fay v. Oatley, 6 Wis. 42; Keir v. Leenan, 9 A. & E., N. S., 371; Seiber v. Price, 26 Mich 579; Hacket v. King, 6 Allen 58; Osburn v. Robbins, 36 N. Y., 371; Roll v. Raguet, 4 Ohio 400; Moore v. Adams, 8 Ohio 372.

OPINION

Graves, J.

Willey and his son-in-law, one Warner, made their joint and several promissory note to Snyder for two thousand dollars, and payment being refused when it matured, Snyder brought this suit against Willey upon it. Willey defended, and the essence of his defense was, that a material part of the consideration was the stifling of two criminal prosecutions (of which one was for forgery), commenced at Snyder's instance, and then pending against Warner. The jury returned a general verdict for Willey, and likewise returned answers to a large number of special questions. Judgment being entered against Snyder, he brought error, and the case is before us on a voluminous bill of exceptions, which has been fully inspected. It is seriously objectionable on account of its length and method. There are about two hundred folios of testimony, when all that was in the least needful might have been set down in less than fifty. An unreasonable expense was thus caused, and the labor of review largely enhanced. It would appear that notes of the trial were literally incorporated, without reference to their needfulness for the purpose of decision here, and as evidence of the want of care shown in drawing up the bill, we observe that at the foot of the testimony it is stated that "this was all the testimony given in the case," whereas it appears, but a few folios back, that the plaintiff, in answer to explicit questions by defendant's counsel, testified that he heard Mr. Marble testify in the cause the day before, and yet no such testimony, or any testimony of Mr. Marble, appears in the bill. We have had frequent occasion to express our disapproval of similar improprieties in practice. It is not alone that they increase the labor of the court; they unduly magnify the expense, and obscure and mystify the case, and make way for misapprehensions and injustice. It may possibly become necessary to apply some sort of penalty in order to repress such prejudicial irregularities.

It seems proper, in the first place, to gather from the record the material points in dispute. This is the more important because there is considerable matter not able to affect the result, and some which has a mere incidental bearing.

That the paper sued on was given by defendant to plaintiff, was not questioned. The objection was, that it never had any validity; and in substance the theory of the defense was, that Warner had pledged to Snyder a quantity of small notes, having a face value of some two thousand four hundred or two thousand five hundred dollars, on which Snyder had advanced some five hundred or six hundred dollars; that in these circumstances Snyder made a criminal complaint against Warner, and charged him with having forged one of these notes, and caused him to be arrested for examination on the complaint; that Snyder then proceeded to practice on the fears of Warner, Willey and Willey's daughter, Mrs. Warner, and made threats to her to cause her to solicit and influence her father, the defendant, to step forward and become a party to a settlement on exorbitant terms prescribed by Snyder; that defendant, being moved by such arts and means, met Snyder and received and offered terms of settlement; that Snyder's demands were considered too extravagant, and the parties separated without agreeing; that Warner was then placed in jail under the warrant on Snyder's complaint, and was bailed out in a day or two by defendant's means; that Snyder then made a second and different charge against Warner on another of the notes, and caused a warrant for his apprehension to be placed in the hands of the sheriff, and still signified his purpose to push his advantage and pursue Warner to the penitentiary unless a satisfactory settlement should be made; that whilst this warrant was out, and before arrest under it, a general adjustment was agreed upon and in the main carried out; that one branch of it was, that Warner and his father should give their note to Snyder without defendant's knowledge for about two hundred and ninety-four dollars, which was done; that the other branch of it was, that Snyder should telegraph the sheriff to abstain from coming and arresting Warner on the second complaint; that he should surrender the notes he held and stop the criminal proceedings; that they should stand settled; and that Warner and defendant should give the note in suit upon such consideration; that Snyder telegraphed, or was understood to have telegraphed the sheriff as agreed; that he surrendered the notes, and that Warner and defendant gave the note in accordance with the understanding; that shortly afterwards the sheriff appeared and made the arrest on the second complaint, but that in fact the proceedings in both cases were stopped, the plaintiff refusing to appear, and paying the costs; that the note for about two hundred and ninety-four dollars was subsequently paid; that it was expressly understood when the note in suit was given that it was to settle the whole matter, including the criminal proceedings.

The evidence in favor of this theory was very strong.

The plaintiff's position was not essentially different except in two particulars.

First. He insisted that the small notes surrendered amounted, according to their face value, to two thousand four hundred and fourteen dollars and some odd cents; that they were not pledged to him, but were entirely his by purchase from time to time of Warner, and that he gave Warner about eighty cents on the dollar for them, partly in cash and partly in notes he held against Warner.

Second. That in settling and getting the note from Warner and his father and the note in suit, the criminal matters were not taken in to account, and that nothing beyond his civil claim was embraced.

In testifying he admitted he instituted the criminal proceedings, and claimed that the note about which he first complained was a forgery, and at the same time admitted that this very note, and that also on which he based his second complaint, were amongst those he surrendered. He likewise admitted that this surrender of the notes, and the settlement which embraced such surrender, and also embraced the giving the note in suit, actually occurred whilst the criminal proceedings were pending, and that at the very time of making the settlement he telegraphed the sheriff not to come and make arrest on the second complaint. He further testified that shortly after Warner's arrest on the first complaint he met him at Somer's store, and that Warner told him he wanted it fixed up, that he did not want to go to Ionia, and that he (Snyder) replied, "If you want to fix it up, we can do so; that an interview then occurred between plaintiff and defendant, and that defendant made two propositions to settle, one being that he would take the notes if he (Snyder) would throw off ten per cent. and that he (Snyder) declined each proposition; that shortly afterwards, and after Warner had been bailed out of jail, he (Snyder) met him on the sidewalk and said to him: "I was kind of sorry that I did not make the old man another offer after I came home; I was sorry I did not offer to split the difference and throw off five per cent and settle the thing up," and that Warner replied: "We will do it; I will go over and see the old man and fix it up;" that after the second warrant was out, Warner told him he would "fix that thing up in some way," and thereupon the final interview was at once brought about at which the business was concluded; that previous to this, however, he (Snyder) informed the prosecuting attorney "that Warner wanted to settle it up," and that this officer instructed him "not to give any writings to settle a criminal process," but that he might do so in civil matters, and that he gave no writings at all. He testified further, that on the settlement he told Willey "he would not appear on the return day" against Warner, "and dropped it," and that it was dropped; that there was from first to last much controversy about terms; that Warner was to pay the costs incurred in the criminal proceedings, but failing to do so, he (Snyder), had to pay them.

He did not deny having made threats as to what he would do against Warner if no satisfactory adjustment was reached, and reluctantly admitted he meditated sending him to the state prison unless a settlement was obtained.

With this explanation we proceed to consider the assignments of error, and we may first examine those relating to rulings on evidence. It is first assigned for error that the court erred in admitting Warner to testify in regard to transactions between him and plaintiff which were prior to the making of the note in suit, for the reason that the plea did not authorize it.

It is a sufficient answer to say that no exception was taken. But if there had been it would have been without force. The matter referred to was simply introductory, and the basis of the objection as explained at the time, that the notice accompanying the plea alluded to no former transactions or to the borrowing of any money, was fallacious. The defense was directed to the very...