116 Mich. 511 | Mich. | 1898
The plaintiffs sued John T. Elliott & Son, the principal defendants, and garnished Nordella & Owen, who disclosed that they were indebted to the principal defendants, but had been notified that the amount of thfeir indebtedness had been assigned to Caroline S. Elliott. The case was tried in justice’s court, and from there appealed to the circuit court, where it was tried by the judge without a jury. The judge made a written finding of facts, and found, among other things, that on September 19, 1896, the plaintiffs sued the principal defendants, and had a writ of garnishment issue to the garnishee defendants; that the principal defendants had, the day before, assigned, in writing, their claim against the garnishee defendants, to Caroline S. Elliott, and delivered the assignment to her.
The only question involved is, Was that assignment made for an existing indebtedness to Mrs. Elliott? It was the claim of Mrs. Elliott that the principal debtors had collected rents belonging to her for a series of years,
It is said error was committed in the exclusion of testimony. In most instances counsel yielded to the rulings of the court without taking any exception. In those cases we cannot consider the assignments of error.
It is said the court did not allow, on cross-examination, counsel to pursue the question of the insolvency of the principal debtors, and that this was error. We do not see how it could affect the result in this ease if the inquiry had been pursued. There is no dispute but the assignment in this case was made and delivered the day before
Judgment is affirmed.