Bennett v. Libhart
| Decision Date | 22 July 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 489 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Nehemiah M. Bennett v. Henry V. Libhart |
Heard July 15, 1873
Error to Ionia Circuit.
Judgment reversed, with costs of all the courts.
John S. Bennett, for plaintiff in error.
John Toan, for defendant in error.
Libhart sued Bennett before a justice of the peace, and declared on a judgment rendered in his favor before another justice of the peace. Bennett pleaded the general issue. When the cause came on for trial, Libhart produced the docket containing the entry of the judgment on which he claimed to recover, and it was received in evidence by consent. The judgment, however, purported to be in favor of H. V. Libhart, and there was no averment in the declaration that the plaintiff was known by that name, or that such judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff by that name, nor was any evidence given of the identity of the plaintiff with the party in whose favor the judgment was rendered. The justice nevertheless gave judgment in his favor, which has been affirmed in the circuit court.
Had Libhart sued upon a note or other written contract made payable to H. V. Libhart, the possession of the writing by him would have been some evidence that he was the party mentioned therein. But there is no room for a similar presumption in the case of the record of a judgment, upon which one man can bring suit with the same facility as another, if he will make the averment of identity with the party plaintiff. We have, therefore, nothing in this case to support the judgment, unless we are at liberty to assume, as a legal presumption, that where the family name and initials are the same, there is identity of person. This is going farther than we think is admissible.
It is suggested that the fact that the judgment was received in evidence by consent, should preclude the defendant from disputing the right to a recovery upon it; but this is clearly not so. Proof of the judgment was only one of the steps necessary in making out a case; it should have been followed by the further proof that the plaintiff was in fact the party to the first suit.
We regret the necessity of deciding a case on such a ground, but cannot avoid it if the plaintiff fails to make out so obvious a point in his case.
The judgment must be reversed, with costs of all the courts.
The other Justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. Sherwood
...U.S. 187; 57 Ill. 17. Appellant fails on his own proof. 66 Ark. 134; 51 N.C. 528; 105 Pa.St. 601; 29 N.H. 431; 44 Minn. 269; 43 Minn. 347; 27 Mich. 489; S.D. 41; Harris, Law Identification, 212; Mart. Abs. of Tit. art. 173, 175. The decree cannot be collaterally attacked. 66 Ark. 1, 180; 68......
-
Gepford v. Burge
...held that this was not sufficient evidence that publication on which the deed rested had been notice to Quinces R. Noland. In Bennett v. Libhart, 27 Mich. 489, the plaintiffs sued on a judgment purporting to be in favor of H. F. Libhart. His true name was Henry V. Libhart. It was held that:......
-
Holtan v. Beck
...v. Wynn, 4 S.D. 40, 54 N.W. 1047; 16 Cyc. Law & Proc. p. 1056; Ambs v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 44 Minn. 266, 46 N.W. 321; Bennett v. Libhart, 27 Mich. 489; Presumptive Ev. Rule 58, p. 255. Respondent must show his appointment, disqualification of appellant, and a vacancy. 29 Cyc. Law......
-
Ambs v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co.
...to be in a grantee from the latter-named person. Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 420, 431; Burford v. McCue, 53 Pa. St. 427; Bennett v. Libhart, 27 Mich. 489. In view of the facility with which the title or the rights of any person appearing upon the public records may be apparently transferred ......