Palms v. Richardson

16 N.W. 243, 51 Mich. 84, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 521
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 20, 1883
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 N.W. 243 (Palms v. Richardson) 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
Palms v. Richardson, 16 N.W. 243, 51 Mich. 84, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 521 (Mich. 1883).

Opinion

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued defendants in trover for the conversion of certain logs which he had contracted ■should belong to one McElroy when paid for, but which he claimed were not paid for. Judgment passed for defendants.

On the trial a deposition of McElroy was ruled out on the ground that there was a defect in the notice under which it was taken, as not properly signed and as not verified by the person serving it.

But inasmuch as notice of its filing was duly given, and no motion made to suppress, and no objections were filed or served on plaintiff’s attorneys, it was too late to raise the question of its regularity on the hearing. Rule 51 is express on this subject. The question was not only one ,©f form, but a very technical one at best.

The judgment is erroneous for the reasons mentioned, and it must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Cross v. Barnett
21 N.W. 832 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
16 N.W. 243, 51 Mich. 84, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palms-v-richardson-mich-1883.