TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bennett v. Wallace

Bennett v. Wallace, 130 N.W. 188 (Mich. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 13, 1911
Docket
No. 40
Judges
Bird, Brooke, Hooker, Moore, Stone
Citations
130 N.W. 188165 Mich. 661911 Mich. LEXIS 765
Disposition
Reversed.
Headnotes
Trial — Cross-Examination — Inconsistent Statements — Impeachment oe Witnesses. It was error, oil cross-examination of a plaintiff whose testimony on material issues was disputed, to exclude questions asked for the purpose of showing that he had made conflicting statements of his claim in conversations and in his testimony on a former trial in justice’s court.
Summary
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J. Assumpsit in justice’s court by Wilbur W. Bennett against James H. Wallace. Plaintiff appealed to the circuit court from a judgment for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Moore

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Moore, J.

This action arose out of a real estate transaction and building contract. The testimony of the opposing parties is conflicting in many particulars. A verdict was reached and judgment rendered in the sum of $269.62 in favor of the plaintiff. The case is removed here by writ of error.

More than 30 assignments of error are presented. They nearly all grow out of the conduct of the trial court and his rulings in relation to the admission of testimony. One cannot read the record without coming to the conclusion that a degree of impatience with counsel was reached upon the part of the court early in the proceedings which was not calculated to keep the trial free from error. We shall not discuss all of the assignments of error. Counsel should have been allowed to show that *67 plaintiff testified differently at a former trial from what he testified upon this trial. Counsel should have been allowed to show that plaintiff made a different statement of his claim to Mr. Johnson. We also think the testimony offered of Mr. Parsons should have been permitted as to the conversation he heard between plaintiff and defendant. The other assignments of error will doubtless take care of themselves upon a new trial.

Judgment is reversed, and a new trial granted.

Bird, Brooke, and Stone, JJ., concurred. Hooker, J.,.concurred in the result.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1911: 11969: 119112026peak 1911 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Merrill v. Leisenring131 N.W. 538 (Mich. 1911)
  2. Gonzalez v. Hoffman157 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)

Most recent

  1. Gonzalez v. Hoffman157 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)
  2. Merrill v. Leisenring131 N.W. 538 (Mich. 1911)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list