Case ID: mich_46/html/0336-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Marston, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Moses Marx v. Elizabeth Hilsendegen.
    
      Embezzlement — Cross-examination—Statute of limitations.
    
    In trover for converting pension money collected by defendant there is-no error in refusing to allow a witness for the plaintiff to be cross-examined as to whether he had never been arrested for conspiring to procure fraudulent pensions.
    
      Refusing on the trial to allow defendant to interpose the statute of limitations is not error.
    Error to the superior court of Detroit.
    Submitted June 17.
    Decided June 22.
    Trover, begun by capias ad respondend/wm sued out by Elizabeth Hilsendegen against Marx, upon an affidavit setting forth that affiant’s son having enlisted during the war,, became entitled to a bounty, and that he died and affiantapplied for its payment through Eugene Eecht; that the bounty was paid to Marx upon a government certificate to which he had obtained affiant’s signature, and that Marx fraudulently retained the money; that affiant had not learned that the money had been so paid until a few months before beginning this action.
    Fecht, being called as a witness for the plaintiff testified that he was her attorney in her claim for bounty; that he had notified her that her claim had been allowed and had delivered to her the letter from the second auditor' of the treasury department, enclosing the certificate of the amount due and to be paid to her or to her order; that he had not delivered to her the certificate but had given it to Marx, who paid him his fees. On cross-examination he was asked if he was ever arrested for' conspiring with others to procure fraudulent pensions from the United States Government, and the question was excluded. Plaintiff had judgment and defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      M. B. Breitenbach and Chas. E. Miller for plaintiff in error.
    
      Grece & Henssler for defendant in error.
    Defendant should not be allowed to plead the statute of limitations after plaintiff has closed his case: Comp. L. § 5794; Green’s Prac. (1st ed.) 108; Rosenbury v. Angell 6 Mich. 508 ; McHardy v. Wadsworth 8 Mich. 349.
   Marston, C. J.

There was no error in sustaining the objection made to the question asked the witness Fecht on cross-examination. Bissell v. Starr 32 Mich. 299.

Tbe court very properly denied defendant, during tbe trial, tbe privilege of tben interposing tbe plea of tbe statute of limitations in defence of tbe plaintiffs claim. To bave permitted tliis under the circumstances would bave been gross injustice to tbe plaintiff

There was evidence tending to show that Marx bad collected this money. Tbe case was fairly submitted and tbe judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Tbe other Justices concurred.