Raynor v. Norton
| Decision Date | 26 January 1875 |
| Citation | 31 Mich. 210 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | John Raynor and another v. Henry H. Norton |
Heard January 12, 1875
Error to Ingham Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs to defendant in error.
L. Reed and M. V. Montgomery, for plaintiffs in error.
Huntington & Henderson, for defendant in error.
Christiancy, J. did not sit in this case.
Norton brought ejectment for a parcel of land situated in the county of Ingham. The case was tried before a jury, and he recovered. The defendants below then brought error. It became necessary for Norton, in order to make out title in himself, to prove upon the trial that one Josiah Terwilliger conveyed the land to him, and he claimed that in fact such a conveyance had been made, but that the deed had been lost without being recorded. He accordingly proceeded to adduce verbal evidence to show the existence, loss and contents of such conveyance. He not only testified himself upon this subject, but had other witnesses examined upon it. One of these, Mr. Woodhouse, testified that he was register of deeds of the county in 1856, and for some years before, and had something to do about making an abstract of titles to lands in Ingham county; that he also made a list or abstract of unrecorded deeds, of which a large number had accumulated in the register's office.
Counsel for defendant in error then asked him if he had any recollection or knowledge of having seen among the unrecorded deeds, a deed of conveyance from Josiah Terwilliger to Henry H. Norton. This was objected to by plaintiffs in error as irrelevant and incompetent. The counsel for defendant in error claiming that the testimony sought by the question was meant to show the existence and loss of the deed, the court overruled the objection, and the counsel for plaintiffs in error excepted. The witness then stated that he did not know that he had any distinct recollection outside of the records, --minutes made at the time; that he was able to speak of such a deed from minutes made at the time; that the facts about his making the minutes of unrecorded deeds were, that after he had completed the abstract of titles, as a matter of convenience, he made a record of all unrecorded deeds then remaining in the office, among which he found the deed in question here, or a record of it.
The counsel for defendant in error then put this question: "I understand you to say you were able to speak of this deed from the minutes made at the time which you have referred to?" The witness then replied as follows:
It would seem from the record that the witness had his minutes of unrecorded deeds before him whilst he was testifying, and when he had given the evidence just recited, the counsel for defendant in error put this question to him: "State to the jury what you know respecting the existence of the deed, and other particulars of that deed, from the memorandum to which you refer?" The counsel for plaintiffs in error objected, that the testimony of the witness disclosed the fact that he knew nothing of the deed independently of his minutes, and they would show for themselves. The court overruled this objection, and the plaintiffs in error exepted. The witness then proceeded to give a description of the deed from his memorandum before him. and added, that the memorandum was made in January, 1857, and that he had no recollection of seeing the deed after that time.
The objection first noticed was so clearly untenable,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Kendall
...the holding of the Supreme Court of Michigan on the subject, although that court had repeatedly passed upon the question. Raynor v. Norton, 31 Mich. 210; Misner v. Darling, 44 Mich. 439, 7 N.W. 77; Mason v. Phelps, 48 Mich. 126, 11 N.W. 413, 837. Adams v. New York, 192 U.S. 585, 24 Sup.Ct. ......
-
Stephan v. Metzger
...party is entitled to prove any disputed fact by all sorts of competent testimony available to him. Johnson v. Dexter, 37 Vt. 641; Raynor v. Norton, 31 Mich. 210. 3. We regard as untenable the objection to those parts of Exhibit A which the plaintiff and her daughter, Mrs. Thomas, were allow......
-
Stephan v. Metzger
... ... all sorts of competent testimony available to him ... Johnson v. Dexter, 37 Vt. 641; Raynor v ... Norton, 31 Mich. 210 ... 3. We ... regard as untenable the objection to those parts of ... "Exhibit A" which the ... ...
-
King v. Carpenter
...Fairchild 36 Mich. 231. The contents of a lost deed may be proved. Kelsey v. Hanmer 18 Conn. 311; Eslow v. Mitchell 26 Mich. 500; Raynor v. Norton 31 Mich. 210. Complainant's possession was sufficient to sustain his bill. Fitzhugh v. Barnard 12 Mich. 104; Blanchard v. Tyler 12 Mich. 339; Ha......