Beebe v. Beebe

2 Mich. N.P. 144
CourtCircuit Court of the 9th Circuit of Michigan
DecidedMay 15, 1871
StatusPublished

This text of 2 Mich. N.P. 144 (Beebe v. Beebe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Circuit Court of the 9th Circuit of Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Beebe v. Beebe, 2 Mich. N.P. 144 (Mich. Super. Ct. 1871).

Opinion

By the Court,

Brown, J.

The motion in this case is denied, the showing being deemed insufficient.

One of the grounds relied upon for a new trial was newly discovered evidence, and in support of this ground the following authorities were cited: Hilliard on New Trials, 362, 382, 384; 1 Johns. Cases, 402; 20 Conn., 305; 14 Vt., 414; 7 Dana, 329; 28 Maine, 379; 7 Met. 478; 6 Pick, 114; 18 Vt., 460; 20 Conn., 305; 3 Gra., and Waterman on N. T., 1019.

Contra: It must be made to appear affirmatively that the evi. denee could not have been discovered by due,ordinary or reasonable diligence. Hilliard on New Trials, 378; Robinson vs. Doe, 6 Blackf., 85; Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray, 434; People vs. Mack, 2 Parker, 673; Simpkins vs. Wilson, 11 Ind., 541; Laflin vs. Herrington, 17 Ill., 399; Williams vs. Baldwin, 18 John., 489; Stearns vs. Allen, 18 Vt., 119.

Newly discovered evidence, merely cumulative, is no ground for a new trial. Hilliard on N. T., 180, § 13; Stimpson vs. Wilson, 6 Ind., 474; Ferrin vs. Protection Ins. Co., 11 Ohio, 147; Schlencker vs. Risley, 3 Scam., 483; Smith vs. Schultz, 1 Scam., 499; Jennings vs. Loring, 5 Ind., 250; Gardner vs. Gardner, 2 Gray, 434; Manix vs. Malony, 7 Clark, 81; Gardner vs. Mitchell, 6 Pick., 116; Sawyer vs. Merrill, 10 Pick., 16; Whitbeck vs. Whitbeck, 9 Cow., 266; People vs. S. C. of N. Y., 5 Wend., 114; 10 Id., 85.

Newly discovered evidence, which goes only to impeach the credit or character of a witness, is not suffle ient ground for a new trial. Hilliard on N. T., 385; 6 Blackf., 496; 11 Barb., 215; 2 Denio, 109; 11 Ind., 234; 5 John., 248.

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

Related

Meakim v. Anderson
11 Barb. 215 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Whitbeck v. Whitbeck
9 Cow. 266 (New York Supreme Court, 1828)
Harrington v. Bigelow
2 Denio 109 (New York Supreme Court, 1846)
Duryee v. Dennison
5 Johns. 248 (New York Supreme Court, 1810)
Williams v. Baldwin
18 Johns. 489 (New York Supreme Court, 1821)
People ex rel. Oebricks v. Superior Court
5 Wend. 114 (New York Supreme Court, 1830)
Town of Kirby v. Town of Waterford
14 Vt. 414 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1842)
Stearns v. Allen
18 Vt. 119 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1846)
Barker v. French
18 Vt. 460 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1846)
Waller v. Graves
20 Conn. 305 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1850)
Laflin v. Herrington
17 Ill. 399 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1856)
Robinoe v. Doe, on the Demise of Colwell
6 Blackf. 85 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1841)
McIntire v. Young
6 Blackf. 496 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1843)
Jennings v. Loring
5 Ind. 250 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1854)
Simpson v. Wilson
6 Ind. 474 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1855)
Fleming v. State
11 Ind. 234 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1858)
Simpkins v. Wilson
11 Ind. 541 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1859)
Withers v. Butts
37 Ky. 329 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1838)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Mich. N.P. 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beebe-v-beebe-micirct9-1871.