TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wormley v. Grand Rapids Trust Co.

Wormley v. Grand Rapids Trust Co., 206 N.W. 307 (Mich. 1925)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 22, 1925
Docket
No. 18.
Judges
Clark, McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Wiest
Citations
206 N.W. 307232 Mich. 6801925 Mich. LEXIS 912

Opinion of the Court — Clark

Clark, J.

The action is replevin for certain certificates of stock. There was trial without a jury. Defendants had judgment. Plaintiff seeks review on error. The trial judge filed an opinion in writing which counsel have treated as findings of fact and law. No exception to any of them was filed. The assignments of error are upon the findings. In the circumstances we may treat the opinion, containing findings of fact and law, as such findings.

Jackson v. Insurance Co., 211 Mich., 378 ;

Messer v. Dornbos, 210 Mich. 46 ;

Thurber v. Aldrich, 167 Mich. 656 ;

White v. U. S. Gypsum Co., 168 Mich. 238 .

Because of the failure of appellant to file exceptions, the point being raised by appellees, we are precluded from considering whether the findings are against the clear weight of the evidence. Circuit Court Rule No. 45; 3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 12586, 12587;

Curry v. Shears, 216 Mich. 699 ;

Ironton Cross Tie Co.

*682 v. Evans, 146 Mich. 197 ;

Cope-Swift Co.

v. Schlaff Creamery Co., 223 Mich. 543 .

A question usually open, in the absence of exceptions to findings, is that the findings do not support the judgment, but as no assignment of error here presents the question, it cannot be considered.

Weist v. Morlock, 116 Mich. 606 ;

Dennison v. Carpenter, 213 Mich. 658 ;

Curry v. Shears, supra; Messer v. Dornbos, supra.

Appellant urges error in admitting and rejecting evidence. A reason, here sufficient, for declining to consider such matter is that it is covered by no assignment of error, and whether the matter, if presented by proper assignment of error, could be considered in the absence of exceptions to the findings, need not be discussed.

There is nothing to review.

Judgment affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Bird, Sharpe, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 21930: 21941: 119282026peak 1928 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.114 P.2d 740 (N.M. 1941)
  2. Smarr v. Colgrove217 N.W. 775 (Mich. 1928)
  3. J. L. Hudson Co. v. Apartment Investment Corp.221 N.W. 630 (Mich. 1928)
  4. Sparzak v. Lachut230 N.W. 920 (Mich. 1930)
  5. Eason v. Eason's Estate230 N.W. 938 (Mich. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Mosley v. Magnolia Petroleum Co.114 P.2d 740 (N.M. 1941)
  2. Sparzak v. Lachut230 N.W. 920 (Mich. 1930)
  3. Eason v. Eason's Estate230 N.W. 938 (Mich. 1930)
  4. J. L. Hudson Co. v. Apartment Investment Corp.221 N.W. 630 (Mich. 1928)
  5. Smarr v. Colgrove217 N.W. 775 (Mich. 1928)

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 9

DepthCaseCited by
Messer v. Dornbos, 177 N.W. 199 (Mich. 1920) 8
Curry v. Shears, 185 N.W. 671 (Mich. 1921) 8
Weist v. Morlock, 74 N.W. 1012 (Mich. 1898) 11
Cope-Swift Co. v. John Schlaff Creamery Co., 194 N.W. 550 (Mich. 1923) 11
Thurber v. Aldrich, 133 N.W. 620 (Mich. 1911) 5
Ironton Cross Tie Co. v. Evans, 109 N.W. 254 (Mich. 1906) 4
White v. United States Gypsum Co., 133 N.W. 501 (Mich. 1911) 4
Dennison v. Carpenter, 181 N.W. 974 (Mich. 1921) 4
Jackson v. Cont'l Ins., 178 N.W. 772 (Mich. 1920) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list