Snow v. Nowlin

• Decision Date: 28 April 1880
• Citation: 5 N.W. 443,43 Mich. 383
• Parties: SNOW v. NOWLIN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

5 N.W. 443

43 Mich. 383

SNOW v. NOWLIN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 28, 1880

Rejection of certain questions upon cross-examination held proper. Deposition having been excluded because cross-interrogatories were not answered, the error, if any, not reviewed, the deposition not being included in the record value of certain lands, held, immaterial. Interest is allowable by way of damages in action on contract and in many cases of tort.

Error to Wayne.

George H. & G.V.N. Lothrop, for plaintiff in error.

S.R Harris and Henry M. Cheever, for defendant in error.

MARSTON, C.J.

The first error assigned is that the plaintiff was not permitted on cross-examination to answer the question put to him whether he did not try to sell or trade the Kansas property after his return from there, to Charles L. Toner. While it is true that in cases like the present a wide latitude has usually been allowed in the cross-examination of witnesses and that it would not have been error for the court to have permitted the question to have been asked and answered, yet as this record presents the question, we cannot say that the plaintiff in error was prejudiced by the ruling. The offer if made, may have been under such circumstances as to have afforded no tendency to show a ratification or satisfaction with the trade made after full knowledge of the fraud, if any, was committed. The plaintiff may have been willing to sustain even a heavy loss if he could get rid of the property. He may have preferred this to a vindication of his rights in court. In answer to the previous question the witness had said he was not acquainted with Toner, although he thought he had seen such a man. In view of this fact and of the doubtful tendency of such evidence, even if we may assume an affirmative answer would have been given, we are of opinion that, in connection with the question when objected to, some definite offer as to what counsel proposed to prove should have been made, or the question been followed by others, showing the materialty of the proposed testimony.

The witness having testified that he had offered the defendant $200 to trade back, he was asked, on cross-examination, if he had the requisite amount of money under such an offer, some $2,500, if accepted for such purpose. This was properly excluded. He may not have had a dollar, and yet have been able to raise and pay the requisite amount. The good faith of an offer...