Motyka v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.

Motyka v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.; Miecznik v. Same; Kulesza v. Same

Motyka v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., 244 N.W. 897 (Mich. 1931)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: January 5, 1931
Docket: Nos. 3, 4, 5, Calendar Nos. 35,082, 35,083, 35,084.
Judges: Wiest, Clark, McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, Butzel
Citations: 244 N.W. 897260 Mich. 396

Cited by 11 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court — Wiest

Wiest, J.

In tort actions plkintiffs, upon trial by jury, had verdicts, but the court entered judgments non obstante veredicto for defendants. Upon review we reversed the judgments (Motyka v. Railway Co., 253 Mich. 647 , 256 Mich. 417 ) and ordered judgments in the circuit court to be entered on the verdicts.

*398 Reconsideration of the allowance of interest upon the verdicts is moved.

“At common law interest was as a rule not allowed on judgments.” 15 R. O. L. p. 15.

Interest upon verdicts and judgments is purely statutory, and, being in derogation of the common law, cannot be extended beyond stated statutory regulation.

Straus v. Elless Co., 245 Mich. 558 . The statute, 3 Comp. Laws 1929, § 14555, awards interest upon judgments in tort actions “from the time of entry of the same.” In actions founded on contracts, in certain specified instances, interest upon verdicts may be included in judgments. 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 9238.

Entry of judgment means the ministerial act of the clerk in recording it in the permanent records of the court.

The circuit court is now directed to enter judgments on the verdicts, and, from the time of such entry, the interest will commence to run and not before.

No costs.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Fead, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.

to clerical or ministerial nature of entry of judgment, see annotation in 10 A. L. R. 588.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(court may not expand duty to pay statutory interest beyond the limits of the statute)

Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Great Am. Ins., 711 F. Supp. 1475 (N.D. Ill. 1989)

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Schwartz v. Piper Aircraft Corp.282 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)
Matich v. Modern Research Corp.420 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1988)
Department of Civil Rights v. Horizon Tube Fabricating, Inc385 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)
Denham v. Bedford287 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. 1980)
Old Orchard by the Bay Associates v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance454 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1990)
Dittus v. Geyman242 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976)

Most recent

Old Orchard by the Bay Associates v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance454 N.W.2d 73 (Mich. 1990)
Continental Casualty Co. v. Great American Insurance711 F. Supp. 1475 (N.D. Ill. 1989)
Matich v. Modern Research Corp.420 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1988)
Department of Civil Rights v. Horizon Tube Fabricating, Inc385 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)
Denham v. Bedford287 N.W.2d 168 (Mich. 1980)
Schwartz v. Piper Aircraft Corp.282 N.W.2d 306 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Straus v. Elless Co., 222 N.W. 752 (Mich. 1929)	23
	Motyka v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., 240 N.W. 29 (Mich. 1931)	8
	Motyka v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Ry. Co., 235 N.W. 825 (Mich. 1931)	1

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list