Haynes v. Ledyard

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtCooley, Ch. J.
PartiesIsaac Haynes v. William B. Ledyard
Decision Date21 January 1876

33 Mich. 319

Isaac Haynes
v.
William B. Ledyard

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 21, 1876


Heard January 12, 1876

Error to Kent Circuit.

This was an action of replevin brought by defendant in error against Haynes, who as sheriff had levied upon the property in question as that of Levi L. Phillips.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.

Norris & Uhl, for plaintiff in error.

Hughes, O'Brien & Smiley, for defendant in error.

OPINION

Cooley, Ch. J.

We think the circuit judge was entirely right in the view he seems to have taken of the legal effect of the contract [*] [33 Mich. 320] between a defendant in error and J. W. and L. L. Phillips. Such a contract, if made in good faith, is perfectly legal, and requires no filing with the town clerk to preserve the rights of parties under it. It is not a chattel mortgage, but an agreement under which land was to be worked for the benefit of defendant in error, and the crops to be his.

But we also think the plaintiff in error was entitled to show that this agreement was made to protect the property for Levi Phillips, and without any honest intent that it should have effect according to its apparent purpose. Defendant justified under a judgment rendered before the agreement was made, and was therefore in position to assail its bona fides. If its real intent was merely to protect for Levi Phillips the fruits of his labor against pre-existing creditors, it was fraudulent as to them; and this intent was a question of fact for the jury.

An inspection of the record shows also that the judge [33 Mich. 321] applied a rule of cross-examination not consistent with previous decisions of this court. We refer here particularly to what was said in Chandler v. Allison, 10 Mich. 460; Thompson v. Richards, 14 Mich. 172; Detroit & Milwaukee R. R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99, all of which, and many others, are inconsistent with the ruling of the court on some questions. The question put to Levi Phillips as to the person who paid for the purchase of the Walker interest may be taken as an illustration. This was not foreign to the subject matter of the testimony given by the same witness in chief; and the benefits of cross-examination may be and must be almost nullified if such questions must be rejected because that precise subject was not called to the attention of the witness by the party who called him. It cannot be necessary to repeat what we have previously said on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Wallace v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 15, 1899
    ...his statements on direct examination improbable, as these matters affect the credibility of his direct testimony. Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; State v. Eifert, 102 Iowa, 188, 65 N.W. 309, and 71 N.W. 248; Kenyon v. Kenyon, 72 Wis. 234, 39 N.W. 361; Mining Co. v. Grogan, 67 Ill.App. 487;......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...only that such matters are directly connected with the facts testified to in chief. (Blake v. Powell, 26 Kan. 320; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; Wilson v. Wager, 26 Mich. 452; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482, 25 A. 127; Mayer v. People, 80 N.Y. 364; People v. Dixon, 94 Cal. 255, 29 P. ......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 10, 1909
    ...to in chief are properly within the limits of cross examination, as also facts closely connected with the main fact. 48 Pa.St. 396; 33 Mich. 319; 124 Cal. 452; 97 Ala. 187. Under the limited rule urged by appellee, it is held that where a witness on direct examination gives only a portion o......
  • State v. Vance, 2039
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 13, 1910
    ...[Cal.], 99 P. 111; Summer v. Blair, 9 Kan. 521; Da Lee v. Blackburn, 11 Kan. 190; Phillips v. Elwell, 14 O. S. 240; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; State v. Testerman, 68 Mo. 411; People v. McGungill, 41 Cal. 430; People v. O'Brien, 96 Cal. 171, 180, 31 P. 45; People v. Arrighini, 122 Cal.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Wallace v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 15, 1899
    ...his statements on direct examination improbable, as these matters affect the credibility of his direct testimony. Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; State v. Eifert, 102 Iowa, 188, 65 N.W. 309, and 71 N.W. 248; Kenyon v. Kenyon, 72 Wis. 234, 39 N.W. 361; Mining Co. v. Grogan, 67 Ill.App. 487;......
  • St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Raines
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • May 10, 1909
    ...to in chief are properly within the limits of cross examination, as also facts closely connected with the main fact. 48 Pa.St. 396; 33 Mich. 319; 124 Cal. 452; 97 Ala. 187. Under the limited rule urged by appellee, it is held that where a witness on direct examination gives only a portion o......
  • State v. Webb
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1899
    ...only that such matters are directly connected with the facts testified to in chief. (Blake v. Powell, 26 Kan. 320; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; Wilson v. Wager, 26 Mich. 452; Thomas v. Miller, 151 Pa. St. 482, 25 A. 127; Mayer v. People, 80 N.Y. 364; People v. Dixon, 94 Cal. 255, 29 P. ......
  • State v. Vance, 2039
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • July 13, 1910
    ...[Cal.], 99 P. 111; Summer v. Blair, 9 Kan. 521; Da Lee v. Blackburn, 11 Kan. 190; Phillips v. Elwell, 14 O. S. 240; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319; State v. Testerman, 68 Mo. 411; People v. McGungill, 41 Cal. 430; People v. O'Brien, 96 Cal. 171, 180, 31 P. 45; People v. Arrighini, 122 Cal.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT