Freeman v. Hoag

Michigan Supreme Court

Freeman v. Hoag

187 N.W. 263, 217 Mich. 587, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 1023

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 30, 1922

DocketDocket No. 91

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 N.W. 263 (Freeman v. Hoag) 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

Freeman v. Hoag, 187 N.W. 263, 217 Mich. 587, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 1023 (Mich. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

The facts are stated in Freeman v. Hoag, 208 Mich. 244. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiff brings error.

1. It is said that it was error to deny a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. We agree with the trial court. There is abundant evidence to sustain the verdict.

2. It is urged in plaintiff’s main brief that the argument to the jury of defendant’s counsel, Mr. Burke, was prejudicial. We find in the record no objection to the argument, nothing to suggest that a ruling thereon by the court was at the time desired or requested. The question therefore will not be considered. See Bates v. Kitchel, 166 Mich. 695. In plaintiff's reply brief, he discusses an argument by another of defendant’s counsel, Mr. Brown, and claims prejudice thereby. Defendant’s counsel showed impatience because of repeated interruption by plaintiff’s counsel and expressed his opinion respecting the purpose of such interruption. He was also somewhat severe in criticism of plaintiff’s testimony. Probably the argument was not prejudicial, but out of an abundance of caution the trial judge directed the jury to disregard it. It may not be said to be prejudicial error.

3. It will profit no one to set forth plaintiff’s requests to charge, embracing the facts already stated, nor to state the instructions given, respecting which complaint is made. The charge as a whole fairly submitted the issues to the jury.

We find no merit in the other questions raised. Two [589]*589juries have rendered verdicts for defendant. We have made careful examination of the record and briefs. It does not appear that this trial has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

Fellows, C. J., and Wiest, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Stone took no part in this decision.

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

Clark, J.

The facts are stated in Freeman v. Hoag, 208 Mich. 244. There was judgment for defendant on a verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiff brings error.

1. It is said that it was error to deny a motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence. We agree with the trial court. There is abundant evidence to sustain the verdict.

2. It is urged in plaintiff’s main brief that the argument to the jury of defendant’s counsel, Mr. Burke, was prejudicial. We find in the record no objection to the argument, nothing to suggest that a ruling thereon by the court was at the time desired or requested. The question therefore will not be considered. See Bates v. Kitchel, 166 Mich. 695. In plaintiff's reply brief, he discusses an argument by another of defendant’s counsel, Mr. Brown, and claims prejudice thereby. Defendant’s counsel showed impatience because of repeated interruption by plaintiff’s counsel and expressed his opinion respecting the purpose of such interruption. He was also somewhat severe in criticism of plaintiff’s testimony. Probably the argument was not prejudicial, but out of an abundance of caution the trial judge directed the jury to disregard it. It may not be said to be prejudicial error.

3. It will profit no one to set forth plaintiff’s requests to charge, embracing the facts already stated, nor to state the instructions given, respecting which complaint is made. The charge as a whole fairly submitted the issues to the jury.

We find no merit in the other questions raised. Two [589]*589juries have rendered verdicts for defendant. We have made careful examination of the record and briefs. It does not appear that this trial has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

Fellows, C. J., and Wiest, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred. The late Justice Stone took no part in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 N.W. 263, 217 Mich. 587, 1922 Mich. LEXIS 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freeman-v-hoag-mich-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack