Grindrod v. Lauzon
| Decision Date | 25 January 1882 |
| Citation | 11 N.W. 396,47 Mich. 584 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | GRINDROD v. LAUZON and others. |
In an action against an officer and certain judgment creditors for the recovery of property claimed to have been levied upon, there was parol evidence of the levy in favor of the judgment creditors, and testimony tending to show that one of the creditors had been spoken to and refused to release it. Held, that an instruction that in the absence of documentary evidence the creditors could not be held was erroneous.
Error to St. Clair.
P.A. Hurd, for plaintiff in error.
O'Brien J. Atkinson, for defendants in error.
Grindrod brought replevin for a piano, and defendants in connection with their plea of the general issue set up that it was held under levies--one in favor of Campfield & Jones and one in favor of one Parsons, by Lauzon as an officer. On the trial there was no direct evidence of the documents of the levy, but there was parol evidence, not objected to, of the levy in favor of Campfield & Jones. There was also testimony tending to show that Campfield was spoken to on the subject and would not release it. The court below directed a verdict against Lauzon, but held that in the absence of documentary evidence, Campfield & Jones could not be held.
We think this was erroneous, and that there was enough to go to the jury on this point. And we cannot hold that if Lauzon was responsible they may not have been. The objections based on an absence of testimony to hold either are not admissible on this record, and we do not think they are of mach force. The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.
(The other justices concurred.)
To continue reading
Request your trial