Hasey v. White Pigeon Beet Sugar Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to St. Joseph Circuit Court. Assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in error, upon a special contract, and upon the bill or note mentioned below. On the trial of the cause in the Court below, before the Hon. E. Ransom, Presiding Judge, the plaintiff offered in evidence the deposition of one Yates, taken under the statute.
Read the full summary
Error to St. Joseph Circuit Court. Assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff in error, upon a special contract, and upon the bill or note mentioned below. On the trial of the cause in the Court below, before the Hon. E. Ransom, Presiding Judge, the plaintiff offered in evidence the deposition of one Yates, taken under the statute. R. S. 433. Yates was a stockholder and director in the White Pigeon Beet Sugar Company, (the defendants,) who were a corporation, and they, on this ground, objected to the reading of the deposition, contending that he was not a competent witness. No objection appeared to…
1Opinion of the CourtFelch, J.
3. The first inquiry is, whether the deposition of Yates was properly rejected. The defendants were a corporation, organized under the provisions of “ An act relative to incorporations for manufacturing purposes,” approved March 22, 1837, (S. L. 1837, p. 284,) which made the “ individual property of each and every stockholder liable to be levied upon and taken by virtue of any execution issued against the company in its corporate name.” As a member of the corporation, the interest of the witness was with the defendants. It does not appear that he objected to giving his testimony in the case,…
2Cited by7 opinions
- People v. WarnerNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Ward v. WordsworthNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1852
- State v. DameSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881
- Cook v. StilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Steel v. Davis Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1850
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.