Case Name: Josephine Albert v. John B. Sutton
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1873-10-07
Citations: 28 Mich. 2
Docket Number: 
Parties: Josephine Albert v. John B. Sutton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 2–3

Head Matter:
Josephine Albert v. John B. Sutton.
Special appeal: Admissibility of evidence. On a special appeal from a justice’s court* questions of the admissibility of evidence before the justice are not subject to review.
SpecifU appeal: Return: Ground of ruling. Where the justice in his return to such an appeai states a ruling made by him, without giving the ground on which it was made, it is error for the circuit court to assume that the ruling was made upon any particular and erroneous ground, when another and admissible ground is equally consistent with the return.
Heard and decided October 7.
Error to Lapeer Circuit.'
Suit was brought by Albert against Sutton before a justice of the peace, and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant took a special appeal to the circuit, alleging as errors: first, a ruling of the justice in excluding certain evidence offered by the defendant; and, second, the overruling of a motion made by defendant to amend his plea. The circuit court reversed the judgment of the justice on the ground that the latter erred in holding that he had no right under the law to allow the amendment to defendant’s plea, and also in rejecting, the evidence offered by defendant; and gave judgment for the defendant for costs. Subsequently a further return was ordered, requiring the justice to set forth the reasons why the amendment to the plea was not allowed by him; and he returned as his reasons that -the motion was not made till after the plaintiff had rested and all the material witnesses had been dismissed by the consent of the defendant’s attorney, and that in the exercise of a sound discretion it did not appear to him necessary to the ends of justice.
S. V. & C. P. Thomas and William Hemingioay, for plaintiff in error.
Gaskill & Geer, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
The Court
held that on a special appeal from a justice's court, questions of the admissibility of evidence before the justice are not subject to review; and that where the justice, in his return to such an appeal, states a ruling made by him, without giving the ground on which it was made, the circuit court cannot assume that the justice's ruling was made upon any particular and erroneous ground, when another and admissible ground is equally consistent with the return. •
Judgment reversed.