Duncan v. Seeley
| Decision Date | 21 June 1876 |
| Citation | 34 Mich. 369 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William S. Duncan v. Harvey Seeley |
Heard June 16, 1876
Error to Superior Court of Detroit.
New trial ordered, with costs.
Jared Patchin, for plaintiff in error.
Jackson & Wisner, for defendant in error.
Seeley brought suit against Duncan to recover the price of certain barley, which he claimed to have sold to Duncan at Pontiac and forwarded to him at Detroit according to agreement. The dispute between the parties related to the quantity bought and whether all that which was forwarded was included in the purchase.
On the trial, the plaintiff, being on the stand, was questioned by his council as to the time when he was at the place of the alleged sale after the sale was made; it being deemed import and to show that he was there on a certain day. Plaintiff in reply stated that he could not state positively without looking at something to refresh his memory. And after professing to look, he stated further that what he had looked at did refresh his memory. He was then called upon by defendant's council to produce the memorandum at which he had looked, but the counsel for plaintiff objected, and the court sustained the objection. We think this was erroneous. The witness was in effect testifying not from recollection, but from something which he professed to have in writing; and the other party had a right to know what the memorandum was on which he relied, and whether he had any legitimate tendency to bring the fact in controversy to mind. It would be a dangerous doctrine which would permit a witness to testify from secret memoranda in the way which was permitted here. The error was not cured in this case by the plaintiff offering on the next day, on the conclusion of his testimony, to produce the memorandum. The defendant was entitled to see it at the time in order to test the candor and integrity of the witness; and the opportunity for such a test might be lost by a delay which an unscrupulous witness might improve by preparing to procure something to exhibit.
We also think the court erred in overruling a question put to the plaintiff on cross examination, as to how long he had speculated in barley. The objection made to it was, that it was not shown that he had speculated in barley at all. But it appeared that he was a dealer in that grain; and there being nothing to indicate that the question was put in an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Volusia County Bank v. Bigelow
-
Bruder v. State
...237; 84 Id. 81; 63 Id. 108. 4. Counsel have the right to inspect any memorandum used by an opposing witness. 149 F. 123; 40 Cyc. 2463; 34 Mich. 369; Jones on Ev., § 876 (2 ed.); 98 Am. Dec. 616; 1 Gr. Ev. (14 Ed.) 466. 5. Dean's testimony was admissible, as corroborative of defendant's. 14 ......
-
State v. Deslovers
...the document or the facts referred to in it, then at law the party on the other side had the right to see the document." In Duncan v. Seeley, 34 Mich. 369 (1876), Cooley, C. J., "The other party had a right to know what the memorandum was on which he relied, and whether it had any legitimat......
-
Neff v. Neff
...to cross-examine regarding it before the witness uses it to refresh his memory. " The other party," says Chief Justice Cooley in Duncan v. Seeley, 34 Mich. 369, had a right to know what the memorandum was on which he relied, and whether it had any legitimate tendency to bring the fact in co......