Skip to content

Freeman v. Hoag

Freeman v. Hoag, 187 N.W. 263 (Mich. 1922)

Court: Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 30, 1922
Docket: No. 91
Judges: Bird, Clark, Late, Moore, Sharpe, Steere, Took, Wiest
Citations: 187 N.W. 263217 Mich. 5871922 Mich. LEXIS 1023
Disposition: Affirmed.

Cited by 4

Headnotes

1. New Trial — Evidence—Great Weight of Evidence. Where there was abundant evidence to sustain the verdict, the trial judge properly denied a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. 2. Appeal and Error — Argument of Counsel — Failure to Object —Review. Where there is nothing in the record to show that objection was made to argument of counsel in the court helow, or that a ruling thereon was either desired or requested, the question will not be considered by the Supreme Court, on error. 3. Same — Trial—Argument of Counsel — Curing Error. Severe criticism of plaintiff’s counsel by defendant's counsel, in his argument, showing impatience because of repeated interruptions, held, not prejudicial error, where it cannot be said that the argument was prejudicial, and especially where the trial judge directed the jury to disregard It. 4. Trial — Instructions — Requested Instructions — Charge as Whole. Where the charge as a whole fairly submitted the issues to the jury, the trial judge was not in error in refusing requested instructions.

Summary

Error to Washtenaw; Sample (George W.), J. Case by Amariah F. Freeman against Egbert G. Hoag for breach of a contract for the division of the proceeds of a promissory note. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings 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 — Clark

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

Clark, J.

The facts are stated in Freeman v. Hoag, 208 Mich. 244 . There was judgment for defendant on a verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiff brings error.

1. It is said that it was error to deny a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. We agree with the trial court. There is abundant evidence to sustain the verdict.

2. It is urged in plaintiff’s main brief that the argument to the jury of defendant’s counsel, Mr. Burke, was prejudicial. We find in the record no objection to the argument, nothing to suggest that a ruling thereon by the court was at the time desired or requested. The question therefore will not be considered. See Bates v. Kitchel, 166 Mich. 695 . In plaintiff's reply brief, he discusses an argument by another of defendant’s counsel, Mr. Brown, and claims prejudice thereby. Defendant’s counsel showed impatience because of repeated interruption by plaintiff’s counsel and expressed his opinion respecting the purpose of such interruption. He was also somewhat severe in criticism of plaintiff’s testimony. Probably the argument was not prejudicial, but out of an abundance of caution the trial judge directed the jury to disregard it. It may not be said to be prejudicial error.

3. It will profit no one to set forth plaintiff’s requests to charge, embracing the facts already stated, nor to state the instructions given, respecting which complaint is made. The charge as a whole fairly submitted the issues to the jury.

We find no merit in the other questions raised. Two *589 juries have rendered verdicts for defendant. We have made careful examination of the record and briefs. It does not appear that this trial has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

Fellows, C. J., and Wiest, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Stone took no part in this decision.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 4 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts4

Relies on it most ⓘ

Yates v. Wenk109 N.W.2d 828 (Mich. 1961)
Bathke v. City of Traverse City13 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. 1944)
Herbert v. Durgis267 N.W. 809 (Mich. 1936)
Taliaferro v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.228 N.W. 778 (Mich. 1930)

Most recent

Yates v. Wenk109 N.W.2d 828 (Mich. 1961)
Bathke v. City of Traverse City13 N.W.2d 184 (Mich. 1944)
Herbert v. Durgis267 N.W. 809 (Mich. 1936)
Taliaferro v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.228 N.W. 778 (Mich. 1930)

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

Depth	Case	Cited by
	Bates v. Kitchel, 132 N.W. 459 (Mich. 1911)	13
	Freeman v. Hoag, 175 N.W. 166 (Mich. 1919)	1