
    Charles Zimmer v. George Davis and another.
    
      Justice’s judgment: JDocIcet entry: Evidence: Clerical error: Formal defects. The docket entry of a justice’s judgment, which shows a joint suit, with hut one defendant served, and a judgment for a specified amount against the “ defendant,” sufficiently indicates what judgment the plaintiff was entitled to, in the light of the statute, providing that where only one of two joint debtors is served the judgment shall be in form against them both; and it is permissible to show that this defect was a mere clerical error. Where the record shows clearly the right, adjudicated it cannot he defeated by a merely formal defect.
    
    
      '¿Evidence: Error will not be premmed. Where a relevant question has "been permitted against a general objection not stating any grounds, and the previous testimony of the witness is not given, it will not be assumed the ruling was error unless the testimony be such as would be" inadmissible from any body and under all circumstances; error will not be presumed.
    
      Garnishee proceedings: Disclosure: Building contract: Completion of building. A disclosure in garnishee proceedings showing that the garnishee had a contract with the principal defendants for a house, on which he owed them, or would owe them, a specified sum less any damages he might have against them for non-fulfillment, it is held that upon satisfactory proof of the completion of the contract by the contractors and plaintiffs as their assignees, substantially within the contract period, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover; the garnishee being bound to pay for the house if built properly, it did not concern him, when it was so built, whether it was done by the contractors or by plaintiffs as their assignees.
    
      Heard October 4.
    
    
      Decided October 17.
    
    Error to Wayne Circuit.
    
      Prentis do Fox and Hoyt Post, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Baker & Campan, for defendants in error.
    
      
      Mere irregularities and informalities in a justice’s judgment will not be regarded in the upper courts: Wilcoxv. Toledo &c. It. B. Co., 45 Mich., 280, citing this case. The provisions as to judgment against joint debtors: How. St., § 6942, is mandatory: Allen v. Mills, 26 Mich., 123.
    
   Campbell, J.:

The proceedings brought up for review in this case are garnishee proceedings. Davis & Spaulding recovered judgment before a justice in a suit brought against John Turner and John Smith. Zimmer was summoned as their debtor, and disclosed that he had a contract with them for a house, on which he owed them, or would owe them, four hundred and twenty-two dollars, less any damages which he might have against them for non-fulfillment. On the trial of the garnishee proceedings the uncontradicted evidence showed the completion of the contract by tbe contractors and plaintiffs as their assignees, within a short time after that fixed. The damages for delay were fixed by the contract at ten dollars a week, and would not reduce the price, by more than a hundred dollars, to tne amount of the judgment.

The garnishee alleges as error, first, the admission in evidence of the docket entry of the judgment against the principal debtors, and certain explanatory testimony showing a clerical error therein.

The statute requires that where only one of two joint debtors is served, the judgment shall be in form against them both. — O.I., $6877.

This being so, a finding against one indicates sufficiently what judgment the plaintiff is entitled to, and his rights are not affected by a clerical misprision of the justice. It has been held by this court that the verdict of a jury in a justice’s court is itself equivalent to a judgment.— Overall v. Pero, 1 Mich. R., 315. Where the record shows clearly the right adjudicated it cannot be defeated by a merely formal defect. The testimony of the justice showed no more than was apparent from the docket, and could do no harm to any one. The error is not well alleged.

Plaintiff Davis had been called as a witness, and had sworn the house was one for which he had furnished material. He was asked, among other things: “ State how you know that the building has been completed according to the plans and specifications ?” This was objected to, but no grounds of objection were stated, and the answer was received. The question was not irrelevant, and as his previous testimony is not detailed, we can see no reason fon presuming any impropriety in it. It was not objected to as leading, or as a question which he was not qualified to answer. In fact, it implies that he had already given some evidence of his knowledge. Unless- the testimony would be inadmissible from anybody and under all circumstances, it could not be rejected where no more appears than we have in this record.

There are some other questions raised, none of which appear to us to have any pertinence. As Zimmer was bound to pay for the house if built properly, it did not concern, him, wheiTit was finished in that way, whether it *was done by his contractors or by plaintiffs as their assignees.

And as he was not called on to pay any more than the contract required, he was not injured by irrelevant testimony concerning the cost or circumstances of portions of the work.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

The other justices concurred.  