Fortney v. Stephan

214 N.W. 957, 239 Mich. 499, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 804
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Fortney v. Stephan. Read the opinion of the Court — 237 Mich. 603
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided April 1, 1927·No. Docket No. 4.·Published

Opinion

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. *Page 501

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

Fortney v. Stephan, 214 N.W. 957, 239 Mich. 499, 1927 Mich. LEXIS 804 (Mich. 1927).

214 N.W. 957 (Fortney v. Stephan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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