TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Nichol v. Ward

Nichol v. Ward, 120 N.W. 569 (Mich. 1909)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 30, 1909
Docket
No. 132
Judges
Alvay, Blair, Grant, Montgomery, Moore
Citations
120 N.W. 569156 Mich. 1361909 Mich. LEXIS 561
Headnotes
Appeal and Error — Exceptions—Necessity. Where, in a case tried before the court without a jury, no objection was made, nor exception taken, to the admission of testimony,, no request for findings of fact and law, nor exception taken to the rendition of judgment, under Circuit Court Rule 26, there is nothing for an appellate court to review.
Summary
Error to Ionia; Davis, J. Assumpsit by John Nichol, receiver of the Citizens’ Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Jackson, against Rachel M. Ward for assessments due upon certain policies of insurance. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

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

Opinion of the Court — Moore

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

Moore, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover for two assessments which it was claimed were due from defendant upon two policies of insurance which had been issued in her name. The case was tried before the judge without a jury. He rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $14.37. The case is brought here by writ of error.

A number of defenses were interposed in the court below, and a good many questions are argued in this court. The disposition of a preliminary question must, however, dispose of the case. No objection was made, and no exception taken, to the admission of testimony. At the conclusion of the testimony a motion was made to dismiss the case. No request was made for special findings of fact and law by the judge. He took the motion under advisement, and later rendered the judgment before stated. No exceptions were taken to the rendition of judgment. No special findings of fact and law; have been made. The record does not comply with Circuit Court Rule 26. There is nothing in this court to review. See the many cases cited in the note to the rule.

Judgment is affirmed.

Blair, C. J., and Grant, Montgomery, and Mc-Alvay, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

1910: 21915: 11919: 11922: 119102026peak 1910 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Nichol v. Newman125 N.W. 760 (Mich. 1910)
  2. Wilson v. Hugus128 N.W. 781 (Mich. 1910)
  3. Walker v. Village of Brooklyn151 N.W. 628 (Mich. 1915)
  4. Oscar Daniels Co. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie175 N.W. 160 (Mich. 1919)
  5. Robbins v. Simons Sales Co.188 N.W. 370 (Mich. 1922)

Most recent

  1. Robbins v. Simons Sales Co.188 N.W. 370 (Mich. 1922)
  2. Oscar Daniels Co. v. City of Sault Ste. Marie175 N.W. 160 (Mich. 1919)
  3. Walker v. Village of Brooklyn151 N.W. 628 (Mich. 1915)
  4. Wilson v. Hugus128 N.W. 781 (Mich. 1910)
  5. Nichol v. Newman125 N.W. 760 (Mich. 1910)

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