Siefert v. Siefert

Michigan Supreme Court

Siefert v. Siefert

82 N.W. 511, 123 Mich. 664, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 885

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 24, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 N.W. 511 (Siefert v. Siefert) 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

Siefert v. Siefert, 82 N.W. 511, 123 Mich. 664, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 885 (Mich. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

{after stating fhe facts). She was only temporarily ill. Her deposition might have been taken. Her testimony was important. I find no authority which holds that temporary illness is sufficient to justify the reading of the testimony taken upon a former trial. "Where the illness is only temporary, certainly the opposite party should be allowed the choice to consent to a continuance or to the introduction of the former testimony. Counsel rely upon Howard v. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795. It must be conceded that the language there used is broad enough to include any case of illness. The character of the illness in that case does not appear in the opinion. The testimony was excluded. Upon examining the record, we find the offer was to prove that the witness, about five months before, had been struck with paralysis; had been confined to his house, and most of the time to his bed; had been ever since, and then was, insane, and unable to come to court, or to give his testimony or his deposition in the case. The language of the court must be construed in the light of the facts. The only safe rule is that the illness must be of a permanent character. We think this is the rule sustained by the authorities. 2 Jones, Ev. § 345; Rex v. Hogg, 6 Car. & P. 176.

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, J.

{after stating fhe facts). She was only temporarily ill. Her deposition might have been taken. Her testimony was important. I find no authority which holds that temporary illness is sufficient to justify the reading of the testimony taken upon a former trial. "Where the illness is only temporary, certainly the opposite party should be allowed the choice to consent to a continuance or to the introduction of the former testimony. Counsel rely upon Howard v. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795. It must be conceded that the language there used is broad enough to include any case of illness. The character of the illness in that case does not appear in the opinion. The testimony was excluded. Upon examining the record, we find the offer was to prove that the witness, about five months before, had been struck with paralysis; had been confined to his house, and most of the time to his bed; had been ever since, and then was, insane, and unable to come to court, or to give his testimony or his deposition in the case. The language of the court must be construed in the light of the facts. The only safe rule is that the illness must be of a permanent character. We think this is the rule sustained by the authorities. 2 Jones, Ev. § 345; Rex v. Hogg, 6 Car. & P. 176.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.W. 511, 123 Mich. 664, 1900 Mich. LEXIS 885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/siefert-v-siefert-mich-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack