Horton v. Chadbourn

• Decision Date: 22 December 1883
• Citation: 17 N.W. 865,31 Minn. 322
• Parties: Hiram T. Horton v. Charles H. Chadbourn
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

17 N.W. 865

31 Minn. 322

Hiram T. Horton v. Charles H. Chadbourn

Supreme Court of Minnesota

December 22, 1883

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the district court for Olmsted county, where the action was tried by Start, J., and a jury.

No error is apparent upon the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Chas C. Willson, for appellant.

Jones & Gove, for respondent.

Vanderburgh J. Mitchell, J., concurring.

OPINION

Vanderburgh, J.

This action was brought by plaintiff to recover the price of a harvesting machine to which he alleges the title had failed and which he claims had previously been sold to one Cissell. Two questions only are raised: (1) It was a material question on the trial of the cause whether Cissell, who was a witness, had actually consummated the purchase of the machine, and whether his evidence was true or wilfully false. To impeach him, the defendant offered to prove that plaintiff had said of him that he was a liar, and he would not believe him. (2) Defendant also offered to prove, by the admissions of plaintiff, that he had received a postal card from Cissell, in which the latter stated he had bought the machine "on condition that Horton, Cowdery, and Hanson should sign the note for it," Cissell having previously testified that the sale was unconditional. Notice had also been given plaintiff to produce a postal card "written by Cissell to plaintiff or the firm of Cowdery & Hanson, about August 1, 1880, stating he had bought a Rochester harvester, if plaintiff or said firm would sign the notes," which was served after the trial had begun, and which plaintiff had failed to produce, saying that "he was unable to find such card." The witness Cissell had previously denied, in answer to the interrogatory of defendant's counsel, that he had written a card to Horton in which he said he had "bought a machine if they would sign a note." Both these offers were rejected by the court.

1. The character of a witness for truth and veracity cannot be impeached by evidence of the individual opinions or declarations of the plaintiff or other persons on the subject of his credibility. The inquiry in such cases must be confined to the general character of the impeached witness, and must not, upon the examination in chief, descend to particular facts within the knowledge of the impeaching witness; and what would not be permitted to be asked of a witness on the stand ought not to be allowed to be shown by the extrajudicial declarations of a party to the suit. Fulton Bank v. Benedict, 1 Hall 480; Clark v. Mershon, 2 N.J.L. 70; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 461.

2. Where it is sought to impeach the credit...