Perkins v. People
| Decision Date | 11 July 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 386 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | James L. Perkins v. The People |
Submitted on Briefs May 14, 1873.
Error to Lenawee Circuit.
Judgment of the circuit court affirmed.
Fidus Livermore and C. A. Stacy, for plaintiff in error.
Byron D. Ball, Attorney General, for the People.
Perkins was convicted in the circuit court for the county of Lenawee of having forged a mortgage given to his wife, Eunice Perkins, by one Heath, by raising the amount from five hundred and fifty dollars to fifteen hundred and fifty dollars, and of having uttered and published the forged instrument. The mortgage was given on a purchase of land by Heath from Perkins, for which Heath testified he was to pay one thousand dollars, and that he did pay one hundred and fifty, assumed the payment of a mortgage on the land of three hundred, and gave the mortgage in controversy for the balance. The theory of the defense was that the land was sold to Heath for fifteen hundred and fifty dollars, the mortgage given for the whole amount, but endorsed with the amount of the mortgage then on the place, and subject to which the sale was made.
It was shown in evidence that at the time the parties met to consummate their trade, Perkins produced a quit-claim deed which he proposed to execute to Heath, but Heath insisted on covenants, and the quit-claim was laid aside. The prosecution gave evidence that in a previous chancery suit relating to this mortgage, Perkins produced this quit-claim deed and made a statement under oath relative to the pen with which it was written, and claimed to account on a comparison of this instrument with the mortgage for some suspicious appearances in the writing as to the consideration and sum to be paid by the mortgage. The prosecution was then permitted to show, under objection, that instead of the facts being as the defendant explained, the draft of quit-claim deed had been altered also, the change being in the sum expressed as the consideration, and which, as now written, corresponded to the altered sum expressed in the mortgage. The reason assigned for the objection was, that the explanatory statement of defendant put in evidence by the prosecution was foreign to the issue in the case at bar, and that being so, the party putting it in was bound by, and could not be permitted to disprove it. The objection would have force if the statement was, in fact, collateral to the main issue; but it was not. It had a direct and very important bearing upon it, and evidence of the falsity of the explanation was not only pertinent, but very material.
Objection is also made that the prosecution was allowed to show that the sum mentioned as the consideration of the mortgage, as well as that expressed in the condition, had been altered. The reason assigned in support of the objection is, that the defendant was not charged in the information with an alteration in the statement of consideration; but as the sum expressed as the consideration, and that to be paid by the condition, are generally expected to correspond, an alteration in the one must always be a material circumstance when a like alteration in the other is asserted and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martel v. Hall Oil Co.
...evidence of value; 13 Ency. of Ev. 451; Chicago Ry. Co. v. Alexander, (Wash.) 91 P. 626; Hine v. Ry. Co., (N. Y.) 30 N.E. 985; Perkins v. People, 27 Mich. 386; Kerr Com'rs. 117 U.S. 379. Market value means the fair value of property, as between one desiring to purchase and one who wants to ......
-
Sammond v. Wis. Tax Comm'n (In re Nieman's Estate)
...95 P. 261;Jefferson Park Dist. v. Sowinski, 336 Ill. 390, 168 N.E. 370;City of Kalamazoo v. Balkema, 252 Mich. 308, 233 N.W. 325;Perkins v. People, 27 Mich. 386;Chaney v. Coleman, 77 Tex. 100, 13 S.W. 850; O. C. Crittenden Co. v. North Br. & Mercantile Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 31 F.2d 700;Wiget v.......
-
People v. Brandon, Docket No. 13462
...et seq., M.S.A. § 28.445 et seq.4 M.C.L.A. § 750.92; M.S.A. § 28.287.5 See, also, People v. Caton, 25 Mich. 388 (1872) and Perkins v. People, 27 Mich. 386 (1873).6 A forged instrument is uttered when it is offered as genuine accompanied by words or conduct indicating that it is genuine with......
-
Fox Wis. Theatres, Inc. v. City of Waukesha
...P. 261; Jefferson Park Dist. v. Sowinski, 336 Ill. 390, 168 N.E. 370;City of Kalamazoo v. Balkema, 252 Mich. 308, 233 N.W. 325;Perkins v. People, 27 Mich. 386;Chaney v. Coleman, 77 Tex 100, 13 S.W. 850;O. B. Crittenden & Co. v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 31 F.2d 700;Wiget ......