Northern Auto Co. v. Rink

Michigan Supreme Court

Northern Auto Co. v. Rink

201 N.W. 214, 229 Mich. 148, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 861

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 10, 1924

DocketDocket No. 120.

StatusPublished

This text of 201 N.W. 214 (Northern Auto Co. v. Rink) 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

Northern Auto Co. v. Rink, 201 N.W. 214, 229 Mich. 148, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 861 (Mich. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Sharpe, J.

Both plaintiff’s and defendant’s automobiles were injured in a collision between them. Plaintiff’s claim for damages was met by the counterclaim of defendant. Defendant reviews a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff for $250 by writ of error.

On cross-examination defendant was asked: “Do you represent anybody besides yourself in the part of this action which involves your claim against the Northern Auto Company?” In the discussion following an objection to this question (the jury being absent during the greater part of it), it appeared that defendant was carrying liability insurance and had been paid the amount of his loss less $100. His counsel asked the jury to find a verdict in his favor for but that amount. Prior to the asking of the question above quoted, defendant had shown that the damage to his car was $350, and there had been no intimation that he wás willing to limit his recovery to $100. On the record as made, defendant was in no way prejudiced by his forced admission that he had received $250 from an insurance company, as he asked to recover only his damage over and above that amount. We therefore need not further consider his right to recover for the entire damage done to his car or the right of plaintiff’s counsel to ask the question objected to.

The claims of the parties as to how the collision occurred, as to which the testimony was very conflicting, were submitted to the jury in instructions in which we discover no error.

*150 The trial judge concluded that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, and with this conclusion we agree.

The judgment is affirmed.

Clark, C. 3., and McDonald, Bird, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

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

Sharpe, J.

Both plaintiff’s and defendant’s automobiles were injured in a collision between them. Plaintiff’s claim for damages was met by the counterclaim of defendant. Defendant reviews a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff for $250 by writ of error.

On cross-examination defendant was asked: “Do you represent anybody besides yourself in the part of this action which involves your claim against the Northern Auto Company?” In the discussion following an objection to this question (the jury being absent during the greater part of it), it appeared that defendant was carrying liability insurance and had been paid the amount of his loss less $100. His counsel asked the jury to find a verdict in his favor for but that amount. Prior to the asking of the question above quoted, defendant had shown that the damage to his car was $350, and there had been no intimation that he wás willing to limit his recovery to $100. On the record as made, defendant was in no way prejudiced by his forced admission that he had received $250 from an insurance company, as he asked to recover only his damage over and above that amount. We therefore need not further consider his right to recover for the entire damage done to his car or the right of plaintiff’s counsel to ask the question objected to.

The claims of the parties as to how the collision occurred, as to which the testimony was very conflicting, were submitted to the jury in instructions in which we discover no error.

*150 The trial judge concluded that the verdict was not against the great weight of the evidence, and with this conclusion we agree.

The judgment is affirmed.

Clark, C. 3., and McDonald, Bird, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 N.W. 214, 229 Mich. 148, 1924 Mich. LEXIS 861, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northern-auto-co-v-rink-mich-1924.