Mifflinburg Bank v. Bickhart

194 N.W. 413, 224 Mich. 98, 1923 Mich. LEXIS 884
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided July 19, 1923·No. Docket No. 96·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Clark, J.

The trial judge granted, unconditionally, defendants’ motion for a new trial. Plaintiff seeks review on writ of error.

The unconditional granting of a motion for a new trial may not be reviewed on writ of error. See Decker v. Fair, 222 Mich. 507; Carton v. Day, 157 Mich. 43; 3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 13736, 12635, and cases cited in the annotations.

The writ is dismissed, with costs to defendants.

Wiest, C. J., and Fellows, McDonald, Bird, Sharpe, Moore, and Steere, JJ., concurred.

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

Mifflinburg Bank v. Bickhart, 194 N.W. 413, 224 Mich. 98, 1923 Mich. LEXIS 884 (Mich. 1923).

194 N.W. 413 (Mifflinburg Bank v. Bickhart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Benmark v. Steffen
157 N.W.2d 468 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1968)
Wheeler v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
293 N.W. 735 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1940)
Terzian v. Gordon
229 Mich. 296 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1924)