Minchen v. Hart

• Decision Date: 07 January 1896
• Docket Number: 647.
• Parties: MINCHEN v. HART et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

72 F. 294

MINCHEN v. HART et al.

No. 647.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

January 7, 1896

This action was brought in the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Iowa, by Hart, Schaffner & Marx against W. T. Minchen, to recover $3,447.75, the value of certain goods sold by the plaintiffs to Jonas Nichols upon the following guaranty of the defendant.

'Carroll Iowa, August 14, 1893.

'Hart Schaffner & Marx, Chicago-- Gentlemen: I will guaranty the payment of such purchases as Jonas Nichols may make of you in the line of merchandise in (which) you deal for this (fall) and winter trade.

'Yours respectfully,

W. T Minchen.'

The answer was a general denial. By a stipulation in writing, signed by the parties and filed with the clerk, a jury was waived, and the cause tried before the court, which rendered a judgment for the plaintiffs for the value of the goods sold on the faith of the guaranty (69 F. 520), and the defendant sued out this writ of error.

A. U. Quint (Ross & Ross were with him on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

D. K. Tenney, H. K. Tenney, S. P. McConnell, M. L. Coffeen, and C. H. Wells filed brief for defendants in error.

Before CALDWELL, SANBORN, and THAYER, Circuit Judges.

CALDWELL Circuit Judge, after stating the case as above, .

Exceptions were taken to the admission of the testimony of one of the plaintiffs, to the effect that he acknowledged, by letter, the receipt of the defendant's letter of guaranty, and that he sold Nichols the goods on a credit on the faith of that guaranty. The only objection interposed at the time to the admission of this testimony was the common, if not meaningless, formula, that it was 'incompetent, immaterial, and irrelevant.' It was clearly material and relevant, and why it was incompetent was not stated. The exception, therefore, goes for nothing. If a reason had been given why it was incompetent, it would probably have been that the letter acknowledging the receipt and accepting the guaranty was the best evidence, and should be produced. If the exception had been stated in this form, it would have been unavailing, because it was shown that written notice was served on the defendant to produce the original letter, and that he refused to produce it, and thereupon the court properly admitted a duly authenticated letterpress copy of the same.

It is assigned for error that 'the court erred in holding that the notice to produce documentary evidence, as served on the attorney for the defendants, was sufficient. ' What the documentary evidence was, and why it was error to admit it is not stated in the assignment of errors. It appears, from the record, that the defendant objected to the introduction of certain 'documentary evidence,' because the notice to produce it 'does not comply with the statute in some respects. ' But in what respect it fell short of the statutory requirements was not stated, and the objection was, therefore, rightly overruled. Like insufficient objections were taken to a few words, or short sentences, in the testimony of two other witnesses. The testimony objected to had no bearing on the merits of the case, and is so irrelevant and immaterial as not to require or justify a...