Brown v. Haak

Michigan Supreme Court

Brown v. Haak

12 N.W. 219, 48 Mich. 229, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 785

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 25, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 N.W. 219 (Brown v. Haak) 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

Brown v. Haak, 12 N.W. 219, 48 Mich. 229, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 785 (Mich. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

Marston, J.

There is no written finding of facts in this ■case, and the only question really open is whether the court erred in refusing to make such a finding. Whether the reasons assigned by the court for not finding the facts could be considered valid or not we need not determine, as it must first appear that a proper request was timely made for such .a finding. The record shows that the defendants’ attorney requested in writing such a finding, but it does not appear when this request was made, whether before or after judgment. The Rule, 87, requires the request to be made before judgment, and we cannot presume that a request was so [230]*230made in order to found error thereon. The record must show error affirmatively, which it does not in this case.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Marston, J.

There is no written finding of facts in this ■case, and the only question really open is whether the court erred in refusing to make such a finding. Whether the reasons assigned by the court for not finding the facts could be considered valid or not we need not determine, as it must first appear that a proper request was timely made for such .a finding. The record shows that the defendants’ attorney requested in writing such a finding, but it does not appear when this request was made, whether before or after judgment. The Rule, 87, requires the request to be made before judgment, and we cannot presume that a request was so [230]*230made in order to found error thereon. The record must show error affirmatively, which it does not in this case.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.W. 219, 48 Mich. 229, 1882 Mich. LEXIS 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-haak-mich-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack