Case Name: The People on the relation of Joseph Begole and another v. The Judge of the Ionia Circuit
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1875-04-29
Citations: 32 Mich. 61
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People on the relation of Joseph Begole and another v. The Judge of the Ionia Circuit.
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 32
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
The People on the relation of Joseph Begole and another v. The Judge of the Ionia Circuit.
Inquest: Production of iviinesses: Motion for continuance. Notwithstanding a canse lie properly noticed for inquest under the rule and no affidavit of merits "be filed, the defendant is entitled to produce witnesses on the inquest, not, of course, to make out any substantive defense to the right of action, hut to show the correct amount due or quantum of recovery;, and he therefore has a right to move for a continuance of the cause, and the court is hound to entertain and consider such motion.
Heard and decided April 29,
Application for Mandamus.
Suit was brought in the Ionia circuit by Albert Yan Vleck against the relators upon the common counts with a promissory note annexed. The plea was the general issue. The cause was duly noticed for inquest under circuit court rule ninety-nine for the November term, 1814. No affidavit of merits was filed. On the first day of term the relators moved, on affidavits showing the absence of material witnesses on their behalf, for a continuance of the cause. The respondent declined and refused to entertain this motion, for-the reason that the cause had been noticed for inquest; and he thereupon called the cause out of its order on the calendar for the term, and an inquest was taken and judgment rendered for plaintiff. The relators move for mandamus to require the respondent to set aside and vacate, said judgment, .and to reinstate the cause and hear their motion for continuance.
Mitchel & Pratt, for relators, were stopped by the court.
Marble & Webstar, for respondent.

Opinion:
The Oouet
held that notwithstanding a cause be noticed for inquest under the rule, and no affidavit of merits be filed, the defendant is' entitled to produce witnesses on the inquest, not, of course, to make out any substantive defense to the right of action, but to show the accurate amount due or quantum of recovery; and that therefore he has a right to move for a continuance of the cause; and that the respondent erred in declining to entertain and consider the motion in said cause.
Mandamus granted.