Schroeder v. Boyce

• Decision Date: 04 June 1901
• Citation: 86 N.W. 387,127 Mich. 33
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: SCHROEDER v. BOYCE.

86 N.W. 387

127 Mich. 33

SCHROEDER v. BOYCE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 4, 1901

Appeal from circuit court, Bay county; Andrew C. Maxwell, Judge.

Action by William Schroeder against Jonathan Boyce. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Simonson, Gillett & Clark, for appellant.

E. A Cooley, for appellee.

LONG J.

This action was brought in the circuit court upon a judgment rendered in the Laporte superior court, state of Indiana. The judgment is set forth in the record. It appears from the copy of the judgment entry produced on the trial that after the recitation of the fact that a motion was made for judgment on special verdict of a jury the court made the following decree: 'It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed by the court that the plaintiff, William Schroeder, recover of and from the defendant, Jonathan Boyce, said sum of $1,079.00, subject to relief, together with his costs and charges herein expended taxed at _____ dollars and _____ cents.' The proper certificates were attached to the copy of the judgment entry made by the clerk of that court under the seal of the court; also a certificate of the judge of the court certifying that Mr. McClung was the clerk of the court and that his signature to the certificate was genuine; and also the further certificate of the clerk that Harry B Tuthill, who signed the certificate, was the sole judge of the superior court of Laporte county, Ind. There was also attached an itemized bill of costs, amounting to $179.45 with a certificate of the clerk that it was a true statement of the costs which had accrued in the cause. No objection was made in the present cause to the introduction in evidence of the tax bill of costs. On the trial, however, defendant's counsel objected to the transcript of judgment being introduced in evidence for the reasons: (1) That it did not appear that the judgment had ever been rendered on the verdict of a jury; (2) that the certificates attached to the transcript state that the judge of the court is the sole judge, and do not state that he is acting or presiding magistrate or chief justice, as required by statute, in order to entitle the record to be received in evidence; (3) that what is claimed to be a judgment rendered on a verdict showed that the amount of costs to be taxed was left blank, so that, in case an execution should issue, it would be impossible to tell for what amount the same should be issued. These objections were overruled, and exceptions taken. The record also shows that no evidence was introduced as to what rate of interest the judgment bore, or what the legal rate of interest...