Case ID: mich-pr_1/html/0002-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Oliver Potvin v. Andrew C. Maxwell, Acting Circuit Judge of Alpena County.
    New Trial. — Refusal of Circuit Judge: TO PERMIT DEFENDANT TO MAKE HIS. SPECIAL DEFENSE.
    Relator applied for mandamus to compel the respondent to set aside a verdict,, and reinstate the case for trial, and on a, retrial permit the relator to make and put in the defense set up in his special notice of defense, in the usual way. An order to show cause was denied.
    
      J. D. Turnbull, for relator, contended:
    That while an appeal is open to the relator, it will only decide that it was error for the respondent to rule out relators defense ;tliat upon a retrial, if it be had before respondent, he might repeat the same thing and that the only complete-remedy is by mandamus.
    
   The facts as alleged in the petition for mandamus were' as follows:

.a — That the Drovers National Bank sued-relator, in justice’s court upon a promissory note, executed by the relator and, as averred indorsed and transferred by the payee to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration, before maturity.

h — That the relator under his plea of the general issu'e gave notice that he» would show on the trial that said note was obtained by the fraudulent representations of the payee; that the plaintiff had notice of this fact when it purchased the note; that said noté was void, because without consideration,. and set up a state of facts supporting said notice.

c — 1That relator recovered a judgment in justice’s court and the plaintiff appealed to the circuit court.

d — That at the commencement of the trial, at the circuit, the respondent asked that the pleadings be read; that upon such reading being had the respondent decided that the relator had no right to make any defense in the case; that the plaintiff was allowed to put in its evidence; that relator then offered to prove all of the facts set up in his special notice but the respondent refused to permit him to do so and directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff.