Haynes v. Knowles
| Decision Date | 24 April 1877 |
| Citation | 36 Mich. 407 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Isaac Haynes v. Roswell Knowles and another |
Submitted on Briefs April 13, 1877
Error to Superior Court of Grand Rapids.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Godwin & Reeves and Blair, Stone & Kingsley, for plaintiff in error.
Hughes O'Brien & Smiley, for defendants in error.
Haynes was sued for the conversion of the partnership property of Knowles & Littlefield and for breaking up their business by its seizure and retention without right.
His justification was a levy under a writ of attachment directed against Lon P. Littlefield, under which he made the seizure in question. The plea was the general issue, without any special notice. The property seized was hides, meat, fresh and salt, and a lot of articles used in carrying on a market. The evidence tended and was found by the jury to show a complete ouster of both parties and the entire destruction of their business.
The evidence introduced further showed a levy on all the specific property, item by item, and its appraisal in the same way, on the 10th of April, 1875, under the attachment in question.
The defense controverted some of the facts shown by the plaintiffs, and also undertook to show an amendment made by the sheriff of his own return, under an ex parte order of the court issuing the attachment, the averment as amended being, that he levied on "all the interest of Lon P. Littlefield in all the partnership property and goods of the firm of Knowles & Littlefield, a copartnership composed of said defendant and one Roswell Knowles," etc. The original return made no mention of any partnership interest, nor did the appraisal.
This amendment was made and applied for on the same day, December 13, 1876, while the present suit was on trial, and without notice to anyone; and the affidavit, which was entitled in the original attachment suit, showed that the suit had been discontinued long before.
The court rightly excluded this testimony. If it is possible under any circumstances to amend a return on which jurisdiction over property depends, after the suit has been discontinued, it certainly cannot be done in any case without notice to the parties to be affected by it.--Montgomery v. Merrill, 36 Mich. 97. But the idea that a person who is sued for misconduct in office can be allowed, pending his trial, to manufacture ex parte evidence for himself is preposterous. The amendment is inconsistent and legally false, because the appraisal still stands in contradiction of it, showing that the appraisers valued the entire property item by item; and this appraisal, which is required to conform to the levy, was served on ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ludwigsen v. Larsen
...22 Mich. 117;Clark v. Lake St. Clair, etc., Ice Co., 24 Mich. 508;Welch v. Ware, 32 Mich. 77;Winchester v. Craig, 33 Mich. 205;Haynes v. Knowles, 36 Mich. 407;Friend v. Dunks, 37 Mich. 25;Hamilton v. Smith, 39 Mich. 222;Thompson v. Ellsworth, 39 Mich. 719;Tracy v. Butters, 40 Mich. 406;Russ......
-
Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Gomillion
...see the following cases: Chicago Planing Mill Co. v. Merchants Nat'l Bank, 86 Ill. 587; Linder v. Crawford, 95 Ill.App. 183; Haynes v. Knowles, 36 Mich. 407; Montgomery v. Merrill, 36 Mich. 97; Little Trust Co. v. So. Missouri, etc., Co., 195 Mo. 669, 93 S.W. 944; Wittstruck v. Temple, 58 N......
-
Fitzsimmons v. Chapman
... ... Kennedy 22 Mich. 117; Grand Rapids Booming Co. v ... Jarvis 30 Mich. 308; Welch v. Ware 32 Mich. 77; ... McKercher v. Curtis 35 Mich. 478; Haynes v ... Knowles 36 Mich. 407; for cases outside the rule: ... Chapman v. Dease 34 Mich. 375; Drysdall v ... Smith 44 Mich. 119, 6 N.W. 211 ... ...
-
Maddock's Adm'x v. Skinker
...may remain after payment of the firm debts and the adjustment of the accounts of the partners as between themselves." And in Haynes v. Knowles, 36 Mich. 407, 410, Campbell, J., said: "The partner not sued cannot on any principle of justice, be placed in any worse condition by a creditor of ......