Hunton v. Hertz & Hosbach Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Hunton v. Hertz & Hosbach Co.

76 N.W. 1041, 118 Mich. 475, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1035

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 9, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 76 N.W. 1041 (Hunton v. Hertz & Hosbach Co.) 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

Hunton v. Hertz & Hosbach Co., 76 N.W. 1041, 118 Mich. 475, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1035 (Mich. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, O. J.

(after stating the facts). The case appears to -have been submitted by counsel, and in the instruction of the court, upon the theory that the authority conferred upon the commission men by the deceased was material. This authority was contained in letters which passed- between the deceased and the commission men.. Mr. Morris R. Tousey was a witness for the plaintiff, and upon cross-examination was asked to produce the correspondence. The witness admitted the letters were in court, and in the possession of his counsel. His counsel stated that they were ready to produce them, if so ordered, but denied that they were material. The court declined to order their production, on the ground that it had not the power; that the proper course for the defendant was to issue a subpoena duces tecum. The court was in error. When written documents are in court, it is in the power of the court to order their production for examination, and for admission in evidence if found to be material. The only purpose of the subpoena duces tecum is that the documents may be produced in court. When they ai’e in court, in the hands of the parties or their counsel, the court should order their production. Powers v. Pussell, 26 Mich. 179.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, O. J.

(after stating the facts). The case appears to -have been submitted by counsel, and in the instruction of the court, upon the theory that the authority conferred upon the commission men by the deceased was material. This authority was contained in letters which passed- between the deceased and the commission men.. Mr. Morris R. Tousey was a witness for the plaintiff, and upon cross-examination was asked to produce the correspondence. The witness admitted the letters were in court, and in the possession of his counsel. His counsel stated that they were ready to produce them, if so ordered, but denied that they were material. The court declined to order their production, on the ground that it had not the power; that the proper course for the defendant was to issue a subpoena duces tecum. The court was in error. When written documents are in court, it is in the power of the court to order their production for examination, and for admission in evidence if found to be material. The only purpose of the subpoena duces tecum is that the documents may be produced in court. When they ai’e in court, in the hands of the parties or their counsel, the court should order their production. Powers v. Pussell, 26 Mich. 179.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 N.W. 1041, 118 Mich. 475, 1898 Mich. LEXIS 1035, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunton-v-hertz-hosbach-co-mich-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack