Lichtenburg v. Mair

• Citation: 43 Mich. 387,5 N.W. 455
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 28 April 1880
• Parties: LICHTENBURG and others v. MAIR.

5 N.W. 455

43 Mich. 387

LICHTENBURG and others v. MAIR.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 28, 1880

Where, on direct examination, a portion of a conversation between parties is drawn out, the other party, on cross-examination, is entitled to have the whole conversation detailed.

Error to superior court of Detroit.

Otto Kirchner, for plaintiffs in error.

Wisner & Speed, for defendant in error.

GRAVES, J.

The court erred in overruling the question put on cross-examination to the plaintiff below. He had sworn on his own behalf to an interview with Lichtenburg, and that the latter admitted having received the proceeds of the flour in controversy, but claimed that there was an old account with Baker, the person who had drawn in Mair's favor on defendants in error against the proceeds of the flour, and it was quite competent to call out on the cross-examination all that Lichtenburg said on the subject in the same conversation. The proper practice has been so often and so fully explained that a reference to a few of the cases will be sufficient. Beaubien v. Cicotte, 12 Mich. 459; Detroit & Milwaukee R. Co. v. Van Steinburg, 17 Mich. 99; Turner v. Grand Rapids, 20 Mich. 390; O'Donnell v. Segar, 25 Mich. 367; Wilson v. Wagar, 26 Mich. 452; Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Mich. 319.

As the other charges of error urged in the brief do not strike the court as serious, it is not without some reluctance that a new trial is ordered for the misstep referred to. But it appears unavoidable. The ruling cannot be reconciled with the decisions, and it is not possible to say it worked no prejudice.

The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted.

(The other justices concurred.)