TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Plumer v. Abbey

Sidney S. Plumer v. LeGrand Abbey and Aaron Abbey

Plumer v. Abbey, 39 Mich. 167 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 21, 1878
Judges
Mabston, Other
Citations
39 Mich. 1671878 Mich. LEXIS 249
Headnotes
Finding of facts — Review. Where no finding of facts is obtained the Supreme Court will not examine the evidence to see whether it sustains the conclusion of the court below.
Summary
Case made from Ionia. Assumpsit. Plaintiffs had judgment below as against Aaron Abbey but not as against the other defendant.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Mabston

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Mabston, J.

This is a case made after judgment. From an examination of the record it appears that upon each and every question raised during the progress of the trial the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The *168 case was tried by the court without a jury. Judgment was rendered in favor of defendant LeGrand Abbey, and in favor of plaintiffs as against Aaron Abbey. The evidence and proceedings upon the trial are all substantially set forth in the case' made, but there is no finding of facts by the circuit judge, nor does it appear that any request was made for such a finding. The plaintiffs here claim that they were entitled to a judgment as against LeGrand Abbey also; It is very clear that as the case stands here there is nothing for this court to consider. Plaintiffs did not take any exceptions during the trial. They could not, as the rulings were all in their favor. The court found against them upon the facts, and there being no findings of fact, we cannot examine the evidence in order to ascertain whether the conclusions of the court thereon were correct.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1902: 11905: 11912: 119022026peak 1902 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. McDonell v. Union Trust Co.102 N.W. 953 (Mich. 1905)
  2. Moore v. Royal Oak Lumber & Supply Co.137 N.W. 270 (Mich. 1912)
  3. Wickes v. Pulfrey91 N.W. 633 (Mich. 1902)

Most recent

  1. Moore v. Royal Oak Lumber & Supply Co.137 N.W. 270 (Mich. 1912)
  2. McDonell v. Union Trust Co.102 N.W. 953 (Mich. 1905)
  3. Wickes v. Pulfrey91 N.W. 633 (Mich. 1902)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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