Charles H. Werner & Sons Co. v. Lewis

119 N.W. 431, 155 Mich. 450, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 896
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 2, 1909
DocketDocket No. 95
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 N.W. 431 (Charles H. Werner & Sons Co. v. Lewis) 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
Charles H. Werner & Sons Co. v. Lewis, 119 N.W. 431, 155 Mich. 450, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 896 (Mich. 1909).

Opinion

Grant, J.

Plaintiff brought suit in assumpsit in justice’s court against the defendant. Summons was returned personally served. Defendant did not appear. [451]*451Plaintiff filed a, declaration upon the common counts in assumpsit, and “especially upon a certain promissory note given by the above-named defendant to the above-named plaintiff, under date of November 26, 1895, for $45.89, due in six months, at 7 per cent, interest, and files the note with the court.” After waiting one hour the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the note. This suit is brought upon that judgment.

Defendant objected to the admission of the judgment, because the justice’s docket does not show that evidence was given; that no witnesses were sworn, as required by subdivision 8, § 957, 1 Comp. Laws, which requires the justice to enter upon his docket, among other things, “the names of the witnesses sworn at the request of either party, stating at whose request, the objections, if any, made to the competency of a witness, and the decision thereon.” No evidence was required, further than the production and presentation of the note, under section 826, 1 Comp. Laws, which provides that any written instrument declared upon may be used in evidence upon the trial without proving its execution, unless its execution is denied upon oath at the time of pleading. There was no necessity for the swearing of any witnesses. The case is ruled against the defendant by O’Donnell v. Wade, 151 Mich. 103.

The judgment is affirmed.

Blair, C. J., and Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Ensign v. Fogg
143 N.W. 82 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1913)
Stegeman v. Fraser
125 N.W. 769 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 N.W. 431, 155 Mich. 450, 1909 Mich. LEXIS 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-h-werner-sons-co-v-lewis-mich-1909.