Wood v. Parsons
| Decision Date | 22 April 1873 |
| Citation | 27 Mich. 159 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Samuel C. Wood v. James J. Parsons |
Heard April 17, 1873
Error to St. Clair Circuit.
Judgment of the circuit court affirmed, with costs.
A. E Chadwick, for plaintiff in error.
Trowbridge & Atkinson, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in error brought an action of replevin in the circuit court for the county of St. Clair, against the defendant in error, for a promissory note, or due bill, made by Cyrus Miles, payable to John Atkinson or bearer, for one thousand four hundred and thirty-eight dollars, dated February 22d, 1871.
The plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that John Atkinson, in February, 1871, as the agent and attorney of one Gomer Potter Edwards, received in this State from said Edwards certain promissory notes executed in Canada and by parties residing in Canada, all of which, except one, to some other party than Edwards, and none of which (except possibly one) was then due; that all were payable to bearer; that Edwards instructed him to sell the notes for cash or for a good note of some party in Michigan; that the notes amounted to one thousand four hundred and eighty-eight dollars besides interest, and were payable in Canada currency; that he sold said notes to said Cyrus Miles for the note or due bill of said Miles, to obtain which this action was brought; that Atkinson sent this note to the defendant, directing him to send Edwards a receipt for it; that this note was taken for Edward's, and it was held by the defendant as above stated; that Atkinson, as attorney for Miles, sued some of the notes (Miles had thus taken) in Canada, and Miles collected some of them; that Wood, the plaintiff in this suit, procured an injunction in Canada to restrain the payment to Miles by the makers of these notes, but upon subsequent negotiation between Atkinson (on the part of Miles) and Wood, it was agreed that Wood should discontinue his chancery proceedings against Miles, and permit Miles to collect the notes, which he did, and that Wood should bring a suit in St. Clair county, Michigan (where Miles resided), for the note given by Miles.
The plaintiff introduced one William Grace as a witness, whose evidence tended to show that he was the clerk of the county court of the county of Victoria, province of Ontario, dominion of Canada; that he was familiar with the statutes of Canada, and that a copy entitled "Laws of Canada, 38 and 39, Vict." (so stated in the record, probably 28 and 29 Vict.), being the authorized and public law, was given as the authentic laws and printed under the authority of the dominion parliament; and the act contained in said statutes entitled "Insolvent Act," was the insolvent act of the dominion of Canada. But neither this act nor any other law of Canada is set out or made part of the bill of exceptions.
This witness also produced the original record of the county court of the county of Victoria, and gave evidence tending to prove that they were the original and all of the records of a proceeding in said court, in a case entitled "Insolvent Act of 1869,--In the matter of Gomer Potter Edwards, an insolvent;" that he was the clerk of said court, and as such had the custody of said records.
Under this proof and a stipulation that this record should be received as the records of such court (being a court of record), as though attested under the certificate and seal of the court, and otherwise duly authenticated, the plaintiff's counsel offered said law and record in evidence, and the same was received; said record tending to show the filing of affidavits of several of the creditors of said Edwards, showing him to be an absconding and insolvent debtor; that his residence and place of business was, and had been, in said county of Victoria; which affidavits were filed on the 22d of April, 1870; an order of the same date, signed by the judge of said court, declaring said Edwards an insolvent, within the meaning of said act; that attachment against the estate, property, goods and chattels of said Edwards, issue from said court to the sheriff of said county of Victoria, to seize, attach and take the property of said insolvent; that valid service may be made by serving the wife of the insolvent in Victoria county personally with the writ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thum v. Pingree
...debts, and choses in action are. Bank v. Lacombe, 84 N.Y. 367; Osgood v. Maguire, 61 N.Y. 524; Willets v. Waite, 25 N.Y. 577; Wood v. Parsons, 27 Mich. 159; v. Williams, 6 Pick., 286; Dunlap v. Rogers, 47 N.H. 281; S.C., 93 A.D. 433; Filch v. Bugbee, 49 Me. 9, 77 A.D. 203; Paine v. Lester, ......
-
Hervey v. Edens
...of one state does not pass title to real property situate in another. Moseby v. Burrow, 52 Tex. 396, and authorities there cited; Wood v. Parsons, 27 Mich. 159; Houston v. Nowland, 7 Gill & J. 480. See, also, Barnett v. Pool, 23 Tex. 517. It is even held that a voluntary assignment, though ......
-
McEwan v. Zimmer
... ... cannot subject persons or property in another to the direct ... effect of its judgments, orders or decrees; Wood v ... Parsons, 27 Mich. 159; a special plea of want of ... jurisdiction is not necessary where the record shows it, ... Bradshaw v. Heath, 13 ... ...