Prowell v. Neuendorf

Michigan Supreme Court

Prowell v. Neuendorf

104 N.W. 666, 141 Mich. 272, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 777

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 1905

DocketDocket No. 25

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 N.W. 666 (Prowell v. Neuendorf) 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

Prowell v. Neuendorf, 104 N.W. 666, 141 Mich. 272, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 777 (Mich. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

The plaintiff brought an action of ejectment to recover a strip of land claimed by her to be a portion of a lot admittedly owned and occupied by her. Defendants claimed that a line had been established between plaintiff’s property and theirs by agreement and acquiescence. The circuit judge submitted this question of fact to the jury, who found for the plaintiff. Later, on a motion for a new trial, the circuit judge set aside the verdict for plaintiff, and without any new trial directed a verdict for defendants and entered judgment thereon. This practice was without precedent and unauthorized. There was no verdict upon which to base the judgment. See Central Sav. Bank v. O’Connor, 132 Mich. 581; Plunkett v. Railway Co., 140 Mich. 299.

The judgment will be set aside, and a new trial ordered. Plaintiff will recover costs of this court.

Moore, C. J., and Carpenter, Grant, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.

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

Montgomery, J.

The plaintiff brought an action of ejectment to recover a strip of land claimed by her to be a portion of a lot admittedly owned and occupied by her. Defendants claimed that a line had been established between plaintiff’s property and theirs by agreement and acquiescence. The circuit judge submitted this question of fact to the jury, who found for the plaintiff. Later, on a motion for a new trial, the circuit judge set aside the verdict for plaintiff, and without any new trial directed a verdict for defendants and entered judgment thereon. This practice was without precedent and unauthorized. There was no verdict upon which to base the judgment. See Central Sav. Bank v. O’Connor, 132 Mich. 581; Plunkett v. Railway Co., 140 Mich. 299.

The judgment will be set aside, and a new trial ordered. Plaintiff will recover costs of this court.

Moore, C. J., and Carpenter, Grant, and Ostrander, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.W. 666, 141 Mich. 272, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prowell-v-neuendorf-mich-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack