Beurmann v. Van Buren
| Decision Date | 27 October 1880 |
| Citation | 44 Mich. 496,7 N.W. 67 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | BEURMANN v. VAN BUREN. |
Certain evidence held improperly excluded, on the ground of want of materiality. One who buys goods with the sole intent of getting payment for an honest debt, is not affected by the fact that the seller may intend to defraud his creditors if he does not participate in such intention, and the burden of proof as to such intent and participation is upon the party attacking the sale. Certain requests to charge, as applicable to the facts in this case, held, properly refused.
Error to Livingston.
Waddell & Montague and H.F. Higgins, for plaintiff in error.
Cruikshank & Warren and D. Shields, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error being sheriff of the county of Livingston seized under attachments against Daniel A. French certain merchandise as French's property, and the defendant in error, the father-in-law of French, brought trover. He claimed to have bought the property of French before the levy of the attachment for $1,600 and that a little more than $1,000 of the consideration consisted of a sum French was owing him for money loaned and the interest on it and that the remainder was represented by three promissory notes he made to French running two, four and six months respectively and being negotiable. The defence set up was that this sale was fraudulent against creditors.
The jury sustained the sale and the case is brought up on exceptions.
The parties seem to have punctually acquiesced in the propriety of a full investigation, and the record discloses only one objection to evidence. A witness for the defence had testified to the state of French's bank account and in the course of the rebutting case French stated that he had the means of knowing how much he checked out of the bank from June 14th to November, 1, 1879,--that he could tell by looking at his check book. He was then asked to state how much, and it was objected that the question was immaterial. But the court allowed him to answer. Though not important the evidence was pertinent. It belonged to a portion of his affairs which had been inquired into by the defence.
Complaint is made because the circuit judge refused a series of requests. By a number of them the judge was requested to pick out certain enumerated circumstances and convey his opinion to the jury that if they were proved they were signs of fraud on which the issue might be decided. The question to be settled was one of fact and exclusively within the province of the jury and it was their right and their duty to construe the evidence and decide upon its drift and force to produce belief in their minds.
The judge was not bound to suggest specific incidents and communicate his judgment upon their inherent strength as evidence. We do not mean to say however that it is error to direct the attention of the jury to important pieces of evidence, and in such terms as to explain the case and assist them to apply their attention to the essential points, but without misleading them or withdrawing their minds from the due consideration of every item of evidence possessing value. That is not improper and is sometimes important. In this case this circuit judge went far enough certainly in this respect and the plaintiff in error has no proper ground for complaint. Instructions were...
To continue reading
Request your trial