Markey v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Markey v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance

129 N.W. 694, 164 Mich. 350, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 697

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 1, 1911

DocketDocket No. 58

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 129 N.W. 694 (Markey v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance) 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

Markey v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance, 129 N.W. 694, 164 Mich. 350, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 697 (Mich. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostrander, O. J.

The cause was tried by the court. No findings of fact or of law were requested or were made. A judgment was rendered for defendant. There are twelve assignments of error, six of which purport to be based upon rulings admitting testimony over plaintiffs’ objections, and six of which allege, in substance and effect, that it was error to render a judgment for defendant. It appears from the record that the first assignment is not based upon an exception, nor was the question objected to answered by the witness. The second is based upon no exception to the ruling. As to two others, the court stated that the testimony was not, in his judgment, admissible, but it was admitted. As to all of the first six, it may be said that it is not pointed out how the testimony affected the result to plaintiffs’ injury. Under the long-settled practice, the second group of errors cannot be considered. Haines v. Saviers, 93 Mich. 440 (53 N. W. 531); Township of Cumming v. Schick, 94 Mich. 222 (54 N. W. 40); Child v. City of Jackson, 93 Mich. 503 (53 N. W. 629); In re Estate of Buchan, 100 Mich. 219 (58 N. W. 1003); McDonell v. Union Trust Co., 139 Mich. 386 (102 N. W. 953).

The judgment is affirmed.

Bird, Brooke, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.

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

Ostrander, O. J.

The cause was tried by the court. No findings of fact or of law were requested or were made. A judgment was rendered for defendant. There are twelve assignments of error, six of which purport to be based upon rulings admitting testimony over plaintiffs’ objections, and six of which allege, in substance and effect, that it was error to render a judgment for defendant. It appears from the record that the first assignment is not based upon an exception, nor was the question objected to answered by the witness. The second is based upon no exception to the ruling. As to two others, the court stated that the testimony was not, in his judgment, admissible, but it was admitted. As to all of the first six, it may be said that it is not pointed out how the testimony affected the result to plaintiffs’ injury. Under the long-settled practice, the second group of errors cannot be considered. Haines v. Saviers, 93 Mich. 440 (53 N. W. 531); Township of Cumming v. Schick, 94 Mich. 222 (54 N. W. 40); Child v. City of Jackson, 93 Mich. 503 (53 N. W. 629); In re Estate of Buchan, 100 Mich. 219 (58 N. W. 1003); McDonell v. Union Trust Co., 139 Mich. 386 (102 N. W. 953).

The judgment is affirmed.

Bird, Brooke, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 N.W. 694, 164 Mich. 350, 1911 Mich. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markey-v-mutual-benefit-life-insurance-mich-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack