35 Mich. 103 (Mich. 1876), Jacobson v. Metzger

Citation35 Mich. 103
Opinion JudgeMarston, J.:
Party NameAugustus Jacobson v. John A. J. Metzger
AttorneyUpson & Thompson, for plaintiff in error. Pealer & Andrews and H. H. Riley, for defendant in error.
Case DateOctober 24, 1876
CourtSupreme Court of Michigan

Page 103

35 Mich. 103 (Mich. 1876)

Augustus Jacobson

v.

John A. J. Metzger

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 24, 1876

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.

OPINION

Marston, J.:

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

Page 104

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP
7 practice notes
  • 209 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. 1973), 12, People v. Falkner
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 25, 1973
    ...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 affect the in......
  • 27 N.W. 539 (Mich. 1886), People v. Barker
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 8, 1886
    ...10 Mich. 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; O'Donnell v. Segar, 25 Mich. 367; Wilson v.......
  • 67 P. 1072 (Utah 1902), 1316, Whipple v. Preece
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court of Utah
    • March 8, 1902
    ...sec. 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.) . Assignments numbered from 66 to......
  • 39 Mich. 644 (Mich. 1878), New York Iron Mine v. First National Bank of Negaunee
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 21, 1878
    ...U.S. 558; wide latitude should be allowed in cross-examining a party charged with fraud in the transaction at issue, Jacobson v. Metzger, 35 Mich. 103. Ball & Owen and Ashley Pond for defendant in error. A mining corporation must have power to contract debts and give notes to pay th......
  • Free signup to view additional results
7 cases
  • 209 N.W.2d 193 (Mich. 1973), 12, People v. Falkner
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 25, 1973
    ...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 affect the in......
  • 27 N.W. 539 (Mich. 1886), People v. Barker
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • April 8, 1886
    ...10 Mich. 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; O'Donnell v. Segar, 25 Mich. 367; Wilson v.......
  • 67 P. 1072 (Utah 1902), 1316, Whipple v. Preece
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court of Utah
    • March 8, 1902
    ...sec. 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.) . Assignments numbered from 66 to......
  • 39 Mich. 644 (Mich. 1878), New York Iron Mine v. First National Bank of Negaunee
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 21, 1878
    ...U.S. 558; wide latitude should be allowed in cross-examining a party charged with fraud in the transaction at issue, Jacobson v. Metzger, 35 Mich. 103. Ball & Owen and Ashley Pond for defendant in error. A mining corporation must have power to contract debts and give notes to pay th......
  • Free signup to view additional results