Crisup v. Grosslight

• Citation: 79 Mich. 380,44 N.W. 621
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 31 January 1890
• Parties: CRISUP v. GROSSLIGHT.

44 N.W. 621

79 Mich. 380

CRISUP v. GROSSLIGHT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 31, 1890

Appeal from circuit court, Wayne county; F. H. CHAMBERS, Judge.

Action by Thomas R. Crisup against Louis R. Grosslight. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

John G. Hawley, for appellant.

William B. Jackson, for appellee.

MORSE J.

The plaintiff commenced suit in the Wayne circuit court in assumpsit against the defendant, and filed a bill of particulars therein. The defendant pleaded the general issue. When the case came on for trial before a jury the plaintiff's attorney stated the plaintiff's claim as follows: "Gentlemen of the Jury: This case is a little out of the usual line. Most people are willing to pay the doctor and lawyer, and everybody except the preacher; but in this case it is the lawyer claims he has not got his pay and this action is brought to recover it. Mr. Crisup, an attorney here, claims that Mr. Grosslight employed him to defend a man by the name of Gaines. In stating this,-in opening this case,-I take this from my client, and what I state you I do not intend in any offensive sense at all, but simply to state the facts as I understand them, and, if I am mistaken about them, of course you will correct me. Louis Grosslight, the gentleman that sits here, was charged, as I understand it, with four offenses of receiving stolen property, and this man Gaines was a witness against him, and he was arrested four times, as I understand it, or on four different charges of receiving stolen property, and this man Gaines was a witness against him; and in that class of cases, sometimes, it becomes necessary for the defendant to secure the absence of the people's witnesses; and in this matter, as I understand it, Mr. Gaines was in jail, and it was necessary that he be gotten out; so Mr. Grosslight employed Mr. Crisup to get him out, and get him away,-get him out,-get him released in some manner, the details of which he will give you upon the witness stand, and Mr. Grosslight agreed to pay him $200. The man got away, and Mr. Crisup hasn't got his money. That is the way I understand it. If I have been mistaken in this matter, why, of course you will correct me, as I said before."

The defendant's attorney thereupon requested the court to direct a verdict for the defendant upon this statement. Plaintiff's counsel expressed his willingness to have the verdict directed upon the same, but claimed it should be for the plaintiff. The court said: "You may take a verdict for the defendant." The plaintiff's counsel took exception, and then stated that he wished to make a further statement of the details to the jury. His request was granted, and he then said: "I state further gentlemen, as far as Mr. Crisup is concerned, that Mr. Crisup was employed by this man Grosslight to attend to this man, not only his case, but the Gaines case in the police court, and render the services under this agreement, that he was to pay him $200, and rendered these services, and is entitled to his pay. On the inference that my brother seeks to make here, that Mr. Crisup assisted him to run away, or anything of that kind, in that I am in fault, as I am informed. The truth of it was, it was Mr. Grosslight and Mr....