Jacobson v. Metzger
| Decision Date | 24 October 1876 |
| Citation | 35 Mich. 103 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Augustus Jacobson v. John A. J. Metzger |
Heard October 11, 1876
Error to St. Joseph Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Upson & Thompson, for plaintiff in error.
Pealer & Andrews and H. H. Riley, for defendant in error.
Plaintiff in error brought replevin against defendant in error, for certain goods seized and held by the latter as sheriff, by virtue of an execution in favor of White et al. against the firm of Jacobson & Co., who it was claimed had sold the goods to plaintiff, who was their brother, for the purpose of defrauding their creditors.
The allegations of error from the first to the twelfth inclusive, are in regard to the legal admissibility of certain questions asked upon the cross-examination of the plaintiff while upon the stand. These questions were all asked with a view of eliciting evidence tending to show that the sale was fraudulent as against the creditors of Jacobson & Co., from whom the plaintiff claimed to have purchased, and the objection made, was that they were not proper on cross-examination. As the effect of the evidence given by this witness in chief was to show that he was entitled to recover, the defendant had a right upon cross-examination to draw out any facts which would tend to destroy the prima facie case thus made. Aside from this, however, great latitude has always been allowed the cross-examination in this class of cases, especially where one of the parties to the alleged fraudulent transaction is upon the stand. In cases of fraud no definite, fixed rule can be laid down, as to do so would but in many cases be laying down rules for the guidance of parties about to perpetrate frauds. Much must be left to the discretion of the trial judge, and in this case we think the parties have no cause to complain.
The remaining assignments of error relate to the charge. Without examining the charge in detail, we are satisfied that, taken together, the questions were fairly and carefully submitted to the jury, within the principles of previous decisions of this court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Falkner
...have no doubt it was entirely proper in this case to permit Algram to be fully questioned. Chandler v. Allison, 10 Mich. 460; Jacobson v. Metzger, 35 Mich. 103; Saunders v. People, 38 Mich. 218. But it would be grossly unjust to refuse a witness the benefit of any explanation that may affec......
-
Whipple v. Preece
... ... 528; ... Thornton v. Hook, 36 Cal. 223; Harper v ... Lamping, 33 Cal. 646; Jackson v. Fether River W ... Co., 14 Cal. 22; Jacobsen v. Metzger, 35 Mich ... 103; Jennings v. Prentice, 39 Mich. 422; ... Anderson v. Walter, 34 Mich. 114; Kalk v. Fielding, ... 7 N.W. 188 (Wis.) ... was involved, and therefore a wide range on cross-examination ... was permissible. In Jacobson v. Metzger, 35 Mich ... 103, it was held that on cross-examination of a witness who ... had given evidence making out a prima facie case for the ... ...
-
New York Iron Mine v. First National Bank of Negaunee
... ... 558; wide latitude should be ... allowed in cross-examining a party charged with fraud in the ... transaction at issue, Jacobson v. Metzger , 35 Mich ... Ball ... & Owen and Ashley Pond for defendant in error. A mining ... corporation must have power to contract ... ...
-
People v. Barker
... ... 461; New York Iron ... Mine v. Negaunee Bank, 39 Mich. 658; Driscoll v ... People, 47 Mich. 413; S.C. 11 N.W. 221; Jacobson v ... Metzger, 35 Mich. 103; Lichtenberg v. Mair, 43 ... Mich. 387; S.C. 5 N.W. 455; Railroad Co. v. Van ... Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; ... ...