Fortney v. Stephan

239 Mich. 499
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedApril 1, 1927
DocketDocket No. 4
StatusPublished

This text of 239 Mich. 499 (Fortney v. Stephan) 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
Fortney v. Stephan, 239 Mich. 499 (Mich. 1927).

Opinion

On Motion For Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff asks for a rehearing. We do not feel that a rehearing should be granted. One assignment of error, however, was not covered in the opinion (237 Mich. 603), but has been considered and will now be decided. At the trial certain articles in newspapers were received in evidence. In one newspaper an article, claimed to be prejudicial to plaintiff, was not in evidence. In the absence of counsel for plaintiff the jury requested the exhibits and the court, without deleting the article not in evidence, sent the newspapers to the jury. In this the court was in error, but we cannot say, upon an examination of the entire case, it affirmatively appears that the error resulted in a miscarriage of justice. We may not consider the affidavit of a juror. Plaintiff should have severed the articles in evidence from' the other newspaper contents and thereby saved the court from falling into the error.

Rehearing denied, without costs.

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

Related

Fortney v. Stephan
213 N.W. 172 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
239 Mich. 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fortney-v-stephan-mich-1927.