TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Damon v. DeBar

Orion W. Damon v. Sim DeBar and Otto Frelitz

Damon v. DeBar, 54 N.W. 300 (Mich. 1893)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 10, 1893
Judges
McGrath, Other
Citations
54 N.W. 30094 Mich. 5941893 Mich. LEXIS 559
Disposition
Affirmed.
Cited by 12
Headnotes
Former decision — Res judicata. A rule of law, as laid down by the Court in the decision of a cause, is to be applied, upon the same state of facts, in all subsequent proceedings in that cause.
Summary
Error to Saginaw. (Gage, J.) Assumpsit. -Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

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

Opinion of the Court — McGrath

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

McGrath, J.

'In this case plaintiff recovered a judgment of $11.40.

The case was before this Court in 83 Mich. 262 , and it was there held that the circuit judge should have instructed the jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff. TJpon the second trial, upon substantially the same record, the circuit judge did direct a verdict, and defendants appeal.

It is insisted that the Court was misled upon the-' former hearing as to the’ points in dispute, and counsel for defendants close their brief with the following:

“We respectfully insist that the charge of the court on the other trial was correct.”

If counsel entertained the impression that the Court was misled upon the former hearing, it was their duty, both to their client and this Court, to ask for a rehearing. It is well settled that a rule of law, as laid down by this Court in the decision of a cause, is to be applied, upon the same state of facts, in all subsequent proceedings in that cause. Newberry v. Trowbridge, 13 Mich. 278 ; Mynning v. Railroad Co., 67 Id. 677.

The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1898: 11909: 11921: 21930: 11934: 11978: 11988: 11989: 22006: 12020: 118982026peak 1921 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Muilenberg v. Upjohn Co.426 N.W.2d 767 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
  2. Meadowlanes Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n v. City of Holland440 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
  3. People v. Ham-Ying444 N.W.2d 529 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
  4. Taylor v. Taylor103 P. 524 (Or. 1909)
  5. Miracle Boot Puller Co. v. Plastray Corp.269 N.W.2d 496 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)
  6. Scottish American Mortgage Co. v. Reeve75 N.W. 910 (N.D. 1898)

Most recent

  1. Estate of Bimla Nayyar v. Oakwood Healthcare IncNo. 343676 (Mich. Ct. App. May 14, 2020)
  2. People v. Ferris722 N.W.2d 217 (Mich. 2006)
  3. Meadowlanes Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n v. City of Holland440 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
  4. People v. Ham-Ying444 N.W.2d 529 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)
  5. Muilenberg v. Upjohn Co.426 N.W.2d 767 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988)
  6. Miracle Boot Puller Co. v. Plastray Corp.269 N.W.2d 496 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Newberry v. Trowbridge, 13 Mich. 263 (1865) 8
Damon v. DeBar, 47 N.W. 216 (Mich. 1890) 4

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