TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ironton Cross Tie Co. v. Evans

Ironton Cross Tie Co. v. Evans, 109 N.W. 254 (Mich. 1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 29, 1906
Docket
No. 7
Judges
Blair, Grant, McAlvay, Moore, Ostrander
Citations
109 N.W. 254146 Mich. 1971906 Mich. LEXIS 883
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
Saving Questions foe Review — Exceptions — Necessity to Review Findings. Where, in. a case tried to the court without a jury, no exceptions are taken to any of the findings, and it is not assigned as error, or contended, that the facts found do not support the conclusions of law, assignments of error in the admission and rejection of testimony, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support particular findings, cannot be reviewed.
Summary
Error to Kent; Perkins, J. Assumpsit by the Ironton Cross Tie Company against Howard E. Evans and John L. Retting, copartners as H. E. Evans & Company, for breach of a contract for the sale of certain ties. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.

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

Opinion of the Court — Ostrander

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

Ostrander, J.

The case was tried without a jury, and the court made findings of fact and of law. The record is certified to contain all of the evidence given upon the trial. Nineteen errors, fourteen of which relate to the admission or rejection of testimony, are assigned. • It is claimed, also, that there is no evidence to support the third, and no competent evidence to support the fourth, fifth, and sixth findings of fact. No exceptions were taken to any of the findings, and it is not assigned as error, or contended, that the facts found do not support the conclusion of law.

The judgment must be affirmed upon the authority of Weist v. Morlock, 116 Mich. 606 ; Stafford v. Crawford, 118 Mich. 285 ; Circuit Court Rule No. 26.

McAlvay, Grant, Blair, and Moore, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11930: 11940: 11951: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co.100 P.2d 124 (Wyo. 1940)
  2. Town of Randolph v. City of Barre80 A.2d 537 (Vt. 1951)
  3. Wormley v. Grand Rapids Trust Co.206 N.W. 307 (Mich. 1925)
  4. Eason v. Eason's Estate230 N.W. 938 (Mich. 1930)

Most recent

  1. Town of Randolph v. City of Barre80 A.2d 537 (Vt. 1951)
  2. Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co.100 P.2d 124 (Wyo. 1940)
  3. Eason v. Eason's Estate230 N.W. 938 (Mich. 1930)
  4. Wormley v. Grand Rapids Trust Co.206 N.W. 307 (Mich. 1925)

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
Weist v. Morlock, 74 N.W. 1012 (Mich. 1898) 11
Stafford v. Crawford, 76 N.W. 496 (Mich. 1898) 8

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