Boyer v. Crown Air Conditioning & Heating Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Boyer v. Crown Air Conditioning & Heating Co.

161 N.W.2d 424, 11 Mich. App. 470, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1305

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 28, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,713

StatusPublished

This text of 161 N.W.2d 424 (Boyer v. Crown Air Conditioning & Heating Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Boyer v. Crown Air Conditioning & Heating Co., 161 N.W.2d 424, 11 Mich. App. 470, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1305 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Burns, P. J.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for new trial which raised an objection to instructions on possible damages.

Defendant had two previous opportunities to apprise the court of the allegedly objectionable nature of the court’s instructions. Prior to closing oral arguments the judge, sitting in chambers, noted that plaintiff’s requested instructions were ambiguous, and consequently he clearly indicated that he intended to submit the conflicting claims concerning damages as a question of fact; defendant did not object to this proposal at that time. After the court so instructed the jury, counsel failed to make known his objection to the court’s instructions pertaining to the computation of damages as required by GCR 1963, 516.2. Defendant’s sole assignment of error was untimely.

The verdict of the jury was within the limits of the court’s instructions and the evidence.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff-appellee.

Holbrook and Peterson, JJ., concurred,

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

Burns, P. J.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for new trial which raised an objection to instructions on possible damages.

Defendant had two previous opportunities to apprise the court of the allegedly objectionable nature of the court’s instructions. Prior to closing oral arguments the judge, sitting in chambers, noted that plaintiff’s requested instructions were ambiguous, and consequently he clearly indicated that he intended to submit the conflicting claims concerning damages as a question of fact; defendant did not object to this proposal at that time. After the court so instructed the jury, counsel failed to make known his objection to the court’s instructions pertaining to the computation of damages as required by GCR 1963, 516.2. Defendant’s sole assignment of error was untimely.

The verdict of the jury was within the limits of the court’s instructions and the evidence.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff-appellee.

Holbrook and Peterson, JJ., concurred,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 N.W.2d 424, 11 Mich. App. 470, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boyer-v-crown-air-conditioning-heating-co-michctapp-1968.