Legal Opinion

Edwards v. Heuer

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1881PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Error to Houghton. Assumpsit for the price of goods sold by Heuer & Brockschmidt to Edwards. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.

There was no error in refusing to exclude Hughes’ deposition. It was taken on stipulation which provided that the person to act in taking it should be a notary public and not of counsel nor in any manner interested for either party, and that this should be certified by the notary in his return. The only grounds of objection not distinctly waived by the stipulation were competency and relevancy. On the reception of the deposition by the clerk due notice-was given according to the terms of rule fifty-one, but no-objection was intimated until its offer at the trial. The defendant’s counsel then…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Sturm v. . Atlantic Mutual Insurance Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Doane v. GlennSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
  3. Rust v. . EcklerNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
  4. Sheldon v. WoodThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
  5. Zellweger v. CaffeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1855

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Barker v. HebbardMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
  2. People v. ConsidineMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Lucker v. LiskeMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  4. In re Zick's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Kaiser v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1911

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API