Chauncey v. Skeels

• Citation: 43 Mich. 347,5 N.W. 380
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 21 April 1880
• Parties: CHAUNCEY v. SKEELS.

5 N.W. 380

43 Mich. 347

CHAUNCEY v. SKEELS.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 21, 1880

Where in justice court, defendant pleads to the merits and goes to trial, objections to the evidence, based on a want of fulness in the declaration, will not be favorably considered especially if defendant has not been misled. Finding of fact by a justice held conclusive.

Error to Branch.

John W. Turner and Loveridge & Barlow, for plaintiff in error.

Louis T.N. Wilson and John B. Shipman, for defendant in error.

GRAVES J.

In this action Skeels sued Chauncey before a justice for certain injuries on the trotting park at Coldwater, for which he alleged Chauncey to be responsible. Several persons were there, exercising horses before sulkeys, Skeels being one and one Moses Chauncey another. The latter was driving a horse called Lexington, which belonged to the plaintiff in error. Skeels was driving at a moderate pace, and Chauncey came up behind him at a rapid rate and ran against his sulkey breaking it down and causing Skeels' horse to run and causing Skeels some personal injury. The horse was damaged by fright and by being bruised, strained and heated. The justice heard the case without a jury, and gave judgment in Skeels' favor for $100. The circuit court affirmed it on certiorari, and Chauncey brought error. Several objections were made before the justice to the admissibility of certain evidence, on the ground that the declaration did not contain the requisite specifications. It was not claimed that a cause of action was not substantially alleged; but the objection was that the particular facts essential to the introduction of the evidence objected to were not set up, and the character of the objection implied that the declaration was deemed sufficient as a substantial statement of an actionable grievance.

There was no demurrer, and the questions were raised under objection to evidence. Had the party demurred, a very different case would have been presented. Where a defendant in justice's court, pleads to the merits and goes to trial, we think he ought not to be indulged in objections against evidence based on the want of fulness of the declaration, in any case where it is apparent that he is not misled, and the rule applies here. The court is satisfied that the nature of the plaintiff's claim was fully understood, and that the defendant in error was not misled. The important question was whether Moses...