Court Opinion

ID: 9658329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:55:36.547199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:53.655481
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
{dissenting). This motion for summary judgment must prevail or fail on strength or weakness of 1 affidavit, that of the interested defendant-appellee, Karl McKeehan. For information of the trial bench and trial profession the affidavit is copied below in full:
- “Karl McKeehan, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a resident of the county of "Wayne, State of Michigan, and that he is one of the defendants in the above captioned action; that he has read and understands the foregoing motion for summary judgment, and that the same is true of his own personal knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be upon information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes the same to be true; and that this affidavit is given in support of his motion for summary judgment.
“Deponent further states that he has no knowledge whatsoever of the nature' of the complaint’ filed *100against him and that the contents of said complaint as they pertain to him are totally and absolutely false and have no basis in law or in fact.
“Deponent further states that he did not participate either directly or indirectly in any plan, scheme or device relative to the preparation or publication of the alleged defamatory matter complained of in plaintiff’s exhibit ‘A,’ and deponent further states that he did not cause said alleged defamatory matter to be prepared, published and/or circulated or distributed in any shape or manner either in whole or in part.
“Deponent further states that at no time did he ever participate by himself or in concert with anyone else in the preparation, publication and/or circulation or distribution of said alleged defamatory material set forth in exhibit ‘A’, nor did he authorize or direct any other person in his own behalf to act fdr him in this regard.
“Deponent further says that he has a just, true and meritorious defense to said action.
••■“Deponent further says not.”*
Now, should he be called to the witness box, would defendant-appellee be permitted to testify to the foregoing conclusions of mixed fact and law, distinguished as such must be from admissible testimony to facts which, judicially weighed, would establish the truth or falsity of such conclusions? Would he or any similarly situated defendant be permitted in a court of law to testify that “the contents of said complaint as they pertain to him are totally and absolutely false and have no basis in law or fact”; or that “he did not participate either directly or indirectly in any plan, scheme or device relative to the preparation or publication of the alleged defamatory matter,” or, as Justice Dethmeks *101puts it, “that the plaintiff’s case is a sham and that there are no facts to support the latter’s claims”? Would he, indeed, be permitted to testify at all as in his quoted affidavit? Are not such conclusions for the trier or triers of fact, rather than for a witness? Forsooth, why not let every denier affirm his denial and then allege or testify, as proffered support, that the original pleáder or affiant is a faker, a prevaricator, and a congenital liar? Such practice, sanctioned here, would quicken the desired pace by which more and more troublesome cases become quick and easy riddance.
For 33 years now, we have required that an affidavit for summary judgment must “set forth with particularity such facts as would be admissible as evidence to establish or deny the grounds stated in the pleading or motion” (1931 Court Rule 30, § 3; 1945 Court Rule 30, § 3; GCR 1963, 116.4 connected with GCR 1963, 117 by .3 of 117). This defendant-appellee’s affidavit fails utterly to conform with such requirement, hence this dissent from affirmance of grant of motion made on strength thereof. For elaboration, stressing particularly that this case, like Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 US 464 (82 S Ct 486, 7 L ed 2d 458), is a tort action rather than an action arising out of contract, see the related case of Durant v. Stahlin, supra at page 82; also Miller v. Miller, 373 Mich 519.
As in Durant I would reverse and remand for entry of order denying motion for summary judgment. Costs should abide the final result as between plaintiffs and defendant-appellee.
Kavanagh, C. J., and Smith, J., concurred in result.
Kelly, J., did not sit.

 Defendant-appellee's motion proper, distinguished from the foregoing affidavit, confines its precise thrust to the claimed failure of plaintiffs’ complaint to state a cause of action against defendant-appellee.