Jones v. Beeson
| Decision Date | 17 April 1877 |
| Citation | 36 Mich. 214 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | James M. Jones and another v. Strother M. Beeson |
Submitted on Briefs April 3, 1877
Error to Berrien Circuit.
This suit was brought in justice's court by defendant in error, as administrator of the estate of William B. Beeson, deceased. The defense having been excluded by the justice, judgment passed for the plaintiff, and defendants removed the cause by certiorari to the circuit, where the judgment of the justice was affirmed. Defendants thereupon brought error.
Judgment reversed, with costs of all the courts.
Cholwell Knox, for plaintiffs in error.
E. Bacon, for defendant in error.
Suit was brought before a justice of the peace, upon a note in favor of William B. Beeson, deceased, and on the defense it was sought to introduce evidence of payment by one of the defendants. Several questions were put and all ruled out. One of them related to payment made since suit brought or at the commencement of suit, and one was directed to a payment made to agents of the deceased. All the questions were ruled out as relating to matters equally within the knowledge of witness and decedent.
These questions, in order to fall within that objection, should be distinctly aimed at such matters as were objectionable. No question on the record appears affirmatively to have been of such a character. Some of them might possibly have related to such transactions, and might, upon an objection, have been required to be limited so as to avoid the difficulty. Several questions could not possibly have been within the prohibition of the statute.
The court below should not have affirmed the judgment.
The judgment of the circuit court, affirming the justice's judgment, must be reversed, and the judgment of the justice reversed, with costs of all the courts.
The other justices concurred.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Smith's Estate
...of Eugene. The testimony was competent. Ward v. Ward, 37 Mich. 253; Cotherman v. Cotherman's Estate, 58 Mich. 467, 25 N.W. 467; Jones v. Beeson, 36 Mich. 214; Seligman v. Eyck's Estate, 49 Mich. 109, 13 N.W. 377; Wheeler v. Arnold, 30 Mich. 307. Assuming in their brief that this testimony w......
-
Downey v. Andrus
...had been kept, and that the replies had been lost or destroyed. The evidence was held to be inadmissible by reason of the statute. Jones v. Jones, 36 Mich. 214: In this case questions were ruled out by the circuit judge as forbidden by the law in question, when it was plain that part of the......
-
Bullock v. Tompkins' Estate
...testimony. This statute has been construed many times, and against this contention of defendant. Wheeler v. Arnold, 30 Mich. 307; Jones v. Beeson, 36 Mich. 214; Ward Ward, 37 Mich. 253; Cotherman v. Cotherman's Estate, 58 Mich. 467, 25 N.W. 467; Doolittle v. Gavagan, 74 Mich. 11, 41 N.W. 84......
-
Howard v. Patrick
... ... obtained as to be privileged, and that the rulings and ... [5 N.W. 86] ... [43 Mich. 125] objections were too broad. Jones v ... Beeson, 36 Mich. 214. The proper ruling would have been, ... in all ambiguous cases, to restrict the examination to such ... matters as ... ...