Hoard v. Little
Decision Date | 09 December 1859 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | Lorenzo Hoard v. Amos Little |
Submitted December 6, 1859
Error to Lapeer circuit.
Little declared against Hoard in the court below as follows
This declaration was filed as the commencement of suit, and having been duly served by the sheriff on defendant, he appeared and pleaded thereto, and the cause went to trial.
On the trial without a jury, the plaintiff offered to read in evidence the promissory note, a copy of which is set out at the foot of the plaintiff's declaration, to which evidence the defendant objected, because the plaintiff, in his declaration, had failed to aver any consideration therein on which to base a promise, and could not travel out of the record to make his case. The court admitted the note in evidence, and defendant excepted. The cause was then submitted to the court, and judgment rendered for plaintiff for the amount of the note.
Hoard brought error, and assigned errors in this court, as follows:
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
J. R. White and A. B. Maynard, for plaintiff in error.
M. E. Crofoot, for defendant in error.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hicks
...'It is the duty of a party objecting to the admission of evidence, to state the ground of his objection with perspicuity.' Hoard v. Little (1859), 7 Mich. 468, 470.' In the other issue raised by defendant, we find no error on the part of the fendant, we find no error on the part of the tria......
-
Naftzker v. Lantz
...the affidavit provided for therein in an admission of the execution by the defendant who omits to file the affidavit. Hoard v. Little, 7 Mich. 468;Thatcher v. West River Bank, 19 Mich. 196;Polhemus v. Bank, 27 Mich. 44;Peoria Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 16 Mich. 380;Lobdell v. Bank, 33 Mich. 408;J......
-
Naftzker v. Lantz
...to file the affidavit provided for therein in an admission of the execution by the defendant who omits to file the affidavit. Hoard v. Little, 7 Mich. 468; Thatcher v. West River Bank, 19 Mich. Polhemus v. Bank, 27 Mich. 44; Peoria Ins. Co. v. Perkins, 16 Mich. 380; Lobdell v. Bank, 33 Mich......
-
Adams v. Novo Engine Co.
...evidence, to state the ground of his objection with perspicuity, that the court and the opposing party may not be misled by it.’ Hoard v. Little, 7 Mich. 468. See, also, Stevens v. Hope, 52 Mich. 65, 17 N. W. 698;Merkle v. Township of Bennington, 68 Mich. 133, 35 N. W. 846. ‘Where the objec......