De Armond v. Neasmith
| Decision Date | 15 June 1875 |
| Citation | 32 Mich. 231 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William De Armond and another v. James M. Neasmith and another. [1] |
Submitted on Briefs, April 29, 1875
Error to Kalamazoo Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Edwards & Sherwood, for plaintiffs in error.
Arthur Brown, for defendants in error.
Defendants in error brought trover in justice's court for the conversion of a two-year-old heifer. The only question apparently in dispute between the parties was one of identity, each party claiming to own and to have raised the heifer.
A witness sworn on the part of the plaintiffs below, after testifying that he had been among Neasmith's herd of cattle the last two or three years, was asked: "How were they as to being gentle, coming around you?" This was objected to as immaterial, but was admitted. This, we think was competent evidence to go to the jury as bearing upon the question in issue. Each party having claimed to raise a heifer, and that this was the identical heifer raised by him the jury should be put in possession of such other facts and circumstances besides color as would tend to enlighten them and enable them to determine the question of ownership.
Nathan Watters, a witness sworn on the part of defendants, and who had testified to having known the animal in question for a long time, was upon cross-examination asked if he had not told a Mr. Cunningham about his grandfather's hunting for this heifer. This was objected to by defendant's counsel, and the objection overruled. We see no objection to this testimony.
George Neasmith, a witness sworn for plaintiffs, testified to a conversation at a certain time and place with William De Armond, and among other things testified: William De Armond, when afterwards called, testified to having seen Neasmith's boys at the time and place referred to by Neasmith, when he (De Armond) was asked: "What did they say to you?" This was objected to as immaterial and hearsay. Defendants' counsel then said he proposed to prove that George Neasmith in that conversation said that his father had traded this heifer to John Neasmith, and received two others in exchange for her. The objection was sustained. This testimony could be admissible only for the purpose of impeaching George Neasmith; for any other purpose it was inadmissible. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Silver Falls Timber Co. v. Eastern & Western Lumber Co.
...Knott v. Raleigh & G. R. Co., 98 N.C. 73, 3 S.E. 735, 2 Am. St. Rep. 321; Hart v. Walker, 100 Mich. 406, 59 N.W. 174; De Armond v. Neasmith, 32 Mich. 231. In three cases last mentioned the observer himself recorded what he saw, but in the present instance the records were not man made but m......
-
Priddy v. Boice
... ... Gunn, 9 Otto ... 660; State ex rel. v. County Court, 98 Mo. 360; ... St. Louis v. Arnot, 94 Mo. 279; DeArmond v ... Neasmith, 32 Mich. 233; Dunne v. Railroad, 131 ... Mo. 7; Ins. Co. v. Schwenk, 94 U.S. 598; State ... v. Braskamp, 87 Iowa 591; People v. Williams, ... ...
-
Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Lewis
...as evidence: 1 Greenleaf Ev. § 496; Gault v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 342; Village of Evanston v. Gunn, U. S. Sup. Ct. Oct. T 1878; DeArmond v. Neasmith, 32 Mich. 231; Gurney v. House, 9 Gray, 404; Cliquot v. Champaign, 3 Wall. 114. If the whole series of instructions is correct and fairly presents......
-
Scott v. Astoria R. Co.
... ... institution, is admissible to prove the meteorological ... condition of the atmosphere. De Armond [43 Or. 34] ... v. Neasmith, 32 Mich. 231; Hart v. Walker, ... 100 Mich. 406, 59 N.W. 174. In Willis v. Lance, 28 ... Or ... ...