Barbier v. Young

Michigan Supreme Court

Barbier v. Young

72 N.W. 1096, 115 Mich. 100, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1195

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 23, 1897

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 72 N.W. 1096 (Barbier v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbier v. Young, 72 N.W. 1096, 115 Mich. 100, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1195 (Mich. 1897).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover on a promissory note for $100, purporting to be executed by the defendant to the deceased, Francois Barbier. The defendant to her plea attached an affidavit denying the execution of the note. The defendant was permitted, without objection, to testify to matters equally within the knowledge of the deceased. Whenever plaintiff’s counsel .objected to the admission of such testimony, it was excluded; and in the oral charge the court instructed the jury that the statute excluded all such testimony. Counsel insist that its admission was error, although no objection was made, and cite McHugh v. Dowd’s Estate, 86 Mich. 412. In that case one of the defenses interposed was the statute of limitations, and the language there used must be construed with reference to the law that no claim barred by the statute of limitations can be allowed, by consent or otherwise, against the estate of a deceased person. McGee v. McDonald’s Estate, 66 Mich. 628. An administrator and his counsel cannot sit by without objecting to the admission of incompetent evidence, and expect the trial judge to rule it out on his own motion.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant, J.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover on a promissory note for $100, purporting to be executed by the defendant to the deceased, Francois Barbier. The defendant to her plea attached an affidavit denying the execution of the note. The defendant was permitted, without objection, to testify to matters equally within the knowledge of the deceased. Whenever plaintiff’s counsel .objected to the admission of such testimony, it was excluded; and in the oral charge the court instructed the jury that the statute excluded all such testimony. Counsel insist that its admission was error, although no objection was made, and cite McHugh v. Dowd’s Estate, 86 Mich. 412. In that case one of the defenses interposed was the statute of limitations, and the language there used must be construed with reference to the law that no claim barred by the statute of limitations can be allowed, by consent or otherwise, against the estate of a deceased person. McGee v. McDonald’s Estate, 66 Mich. 628. An administrator and his counsel cannot sit by without objecting to the admission of incompetent evidence, and expect the trial judge to rule it out on his own motion.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 N.W. 1096, 115 Mich. 100, 1897 Mich. LEXIS 1195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbier-v-young-mich-1897.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack