TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Codde v. Mahiat

Codde v. Mahiat, 66 N.W. 1093 (Mich. 1896)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 28, 1896
Judges
Grant, Hooker, Long, Montgomery, Moore
Citations
66 N.W. 1093109 Mich. 1861896 Mich. LEXIS 824
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Equity—New Trial—Res Judicata. Equity will not relieve a party against a judgment at law, and grant a new trial, upon the ground that the verdict was obtained by perjury on the part of the prevailing party, after a motion for a new trial has been denied by the court which rendered the judgment, and such denial has been affirmed on appeal. Gray v. Barton, 62 Mich. 186, followed.
Summary
Appeal from Wayne; Lillibridge, J. Bill by August Codde against Mary Mahiat to set aside a judgment, and for a new trial. From a decree dismissing the bill on demurrer, complainant appeals. The defendant, Mahiat, obtained judgment against the complainant for breach of promise of marriage, which was affirmed in this court. Mahiat v. Codde, 106 Mich. 387. Upon appeal to this court, complainant gave no bond to stay execution. Execution was issued, some real estate of the complainant levied upon, and sold. After the affirmance by this court, complainant filed this bill in equity to set aside the sale and judgment, and to obtain a new trial. The basis upon which he seeks relief is that the verdict was obtained by perjury on the part of the defendant. He now claims to have discovered new evidence, to the effect that the defendant stated to other parties that she was not engaged to complainant, had no love or affection for him, and would not marry him. Attached to the bill are two affidavits, in which the affiants make oath that they heard her make such statements. A demurrer was interposed, sustained, and the bill dismissed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Grant

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

Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). Gray v. Barton, 62 Mich. 186 , rules this case. It is so nearly identical in its facts and circumstances with this that we deem any further statement or discussion unnecessary.

The decree is affirmed, with costs.

Montgomery,' Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 31910: 11919: 11932: 11941: 11993: 119092026peak 1909 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Steele v. Culver122 N.W. 95 (Mich. 1909)
  2. Boring v. Ott119 N.W. 865 (Wis. 1909) · Concurrence
  3. Triplett v. St Amour507 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. 1993)
  4. Andrews v. Osborn123 N.W. 599 (Mich. 1909)
  5. Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City Township106 P. 1079 (Kan. 1910)
  6. Columbia Casualty Co. v. Klettke244 N.W. 164 (Mich. 1932)

Most recent

  1. Triplett v. St Amour507 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. 1993)
  2. Fawcett v. Atherton299 N.W. 108 (Mich. 1941)
  3. Columbia Casualty Co. v. Klettke244 N.W. 164 (Mich. 1932)
  4. Becker v. Welch173 N.W. 336 (Mich. 1919)
  5. Electric Plaster Co. v. Blue Rapids City Township106 P. 1079 (Kan. 1910)
  6. Andrews v. Osborn123 N.W. 599 (Mich. 1909)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Gray v. Barton, 28 N.W. 813 (Mich. 1886) 49

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