Boggs v. Tobin

Michigan Supreme Court

Boggs v. Tobin

274 N.W. 688, 281 Mich. 1, 1937 Mich. LEXIS 828

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 1, 1937

DocketCalendar 38,131

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 274 N.W. 688 (Boggs v. Tobin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boggs v. Tobin, 274 N.W. 688, 281 Mich. 1, 1937 Mich. LEXIS 828 (Mich. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Potter, J.

This case was before the court and September 9, 1935, opinions were filed therein, 272 Mich. 392. The majority opinion, by Mr. Justice Nelson Sharpe is controlling.

Plaintiffs and appellees made a motion for rehearing which Avas denied October 30, 1935. Later, plaintiffs and appellees filed a motion to amend the opinion of the court and remand the cause for recalculation. January 31, 1936, this court entered an order "without prejudice to the claim of the defendants that plaintiffs have not the right to a reconsideration,” and briefs Avere directed to be filed, addressed to two questions: First, the right to a reconsideration; and, second, the correctness of the calculation as decreed.

Plaintiffs and appellees had a right to make a motion for a rehearing. They are bound by the *3 order overruling such motion. This court has determined no rehearing should he had. The court, on its own motion, if satisfied the conclusion reached by it was wrong, would undoubtedly have the power and authority to grant a rehearing. It has not seen fit to do that. This court has no right, therefore, to reconsider the facts or the law as determined by the majority opinion of this court when the case was decided, as reported in 272 Mich. 392. Plaintiff's may not, under the guise of taking additional testimony to support a recalculation, have a rehearing upon the main controversy in the case. Such facts made the basis of a recalculation can be considered only in case this court is satisfied there was a mistake in the figures made. We cannot so find. Nothing has been presented by the additional testimony taken, or by the argument of counsel, which warrants a reconsideration of the facts.

Defendants are entitled to a decree in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the members of this court filed September 9, 1935.

Fead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Potter, J.

This case was before the court and September 9, 1935, opinions were filed therein, 272 Mich. 392. The majority opinion, by Mr. Justice Nelson Sharpe is controlling.

Plaintiffs and appellees made a motion for rehearing which Avas denied October 30, 1935. Later, plaintiffs and appellees filed a motion to amend the opinion of the court and remand the cause for recalculation. January 31, 1936, this court entered an order "without prejudice to the claim of the defendants that plaintiffs have not the right to a reconsideration,” and briefs Avere directed to be filed, addressed to two questions: First, the right to a reconsideration; and, second, the correctness of the calculation as decreed.

Plaintiffs and appellees had a right to make a motion for a rehearing. They are bound by the *3 order overruling such motion. This court has determined no rehearing should he had. The court, on its own motion, if satisfied the conclusion reached by it was wrong, would undoubtedly have the power and authority to grant a rehearing. It has not seen fit to do that. This court has no right, therefore, to reconsider the facts or the law as determined by the majority opinion of this court when the case was decided, as reported in 272 Mich. 392. Plaintiff's may not, under the guise of taking additional testimony to support a recalculation, have a rehearing upon the main controversy in the case. Such facts made the basis of a recalculation can be considered only in case this court is satisfied there was a mistake in the figures made. We cannot so find. Nothing has been presented by the additional testimony taken, or by the argument of counsel, which warrants a reconsideration of the facts.

Defendants are entitled to a decree in accordance with the opinion of the majority of the members of this court filed September 9, 1935.

Fead, C. J., and North, Wiest, Butzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, and Chandler, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 N.W. 688, 281 Mich. 1, 1937 Mich. LEXIS 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boggs-v-tobin-mich-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack