Case Name: Alexander B. Wells, Jr., v. George P. Booth
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1877-01-12
Citations: 35 Mich. 424
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Alexander B. Wells, Jr., v. George P. Booth.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 401–403

Head Matter:
*Alexander B. Wells, Jr., v. George P. Booth.
Affidavit of merits: Inquest: Circuit court rules 99, 59. An affidavit of merits, filed to prevent an inquest, which was made by the defendant, and stated, that he has fully and fairly stated his case to his counsel, naming them, and has been advised by said counsel, after such statement, that he has a full and complete defense on the merits to the plaintiff's cause of action as stated in the plaintiff's declaration and bill of particulars, and that he verily believes such advice to be true, is held sufficient.
Affidavit of merits: Defects: Amendment. Where such an affidavit, apparently made in good faith, is wanting in some respects, the proper practice is to permit an amend-
Case made: Practice. Where the court has permitted the plaintiff to take an inquest under rule 99, when he had no right to do so, by reason of a proper affidavit of merits having been filed and served, the error may be reviewed on case made
Submitted on briefs and decided January 12.
Case made from Wayne Circuit.
In this case an affidavit of merits was filed to prevent an inquest, and it was held insufficient and an inquest was taken. The affidavit was as follows: “George P. Booth, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that he is the defendant in this case, that he has fully and fairly stated his case to Baker & Thompson, his counsel, and has been advised by said counsel, after such statement, that he has a full and complete defense upon the merits to the plaintiff’s cause of action as stated in the plaintiff’s declaration and bill of particulars, and this deponent verily believes such advice to be true.”
Holmes, Collins db Stoddard, for plaintiff.
JBaTcer db Thompson, for defendant.
On certiorari, enquiring into honest use of public moneys by supervisors, the party applying for a review should swear to merits: Gager v. Chippewa Supervisors, 47 Mich., 168.
Exceptions to rulings on admission of evidence can be reviewed on case made as well as on bill of exceptions: Soper v. Pry, 37 Midi., 236. As to practice, see Probasco v. Cook, 39 Id., 714; Tmbury v. French, Id., 190; Wilkinson v. Bari, Id., 626; when lies, Watson v. Watson, 47 Id., 427. A special exception to tlie conclusions of law, where the case is tried without a jury, and the judge makes a special finding is sufficient, on case made, to raise the point that the facts do not support the judgment: Perkins v. Nugent, 45 Mich., 156. A bare judgment upon a general finding of facts made by the court, without special findings» is not subject to review on case made: Hedges v. Hibbard, 46 Mich., 551; Wertin v. Crocker, 47 Mich., 642.

Opinion:
Per Curt am:
We think the objections made in this case partook somewhat too much of refined technicality. The affidavit would seem to have been made in good faith, and contained all *the substantial essentials, if indeed in some respects it was not even stronger than the rule required. Even if wanting in some respect, the proper practice would have been to permit an amendment. It is but seldom indeed that courts, upon any such purely technical grounds, will deprive a party of a trial upon the merits, and the practice adopted in this case is not to be encouraged. It is claimed that the error, if any, cannot be reviewed in this case. As the record shows that plaintiff took an inquest when he had no right to do so, the error is properly reviewable on error or ease made.
The judgment must be reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered.