Radics v. Hayes

Michigan Supreme Court

Radics v. Hayes

206 N.W. 373, 233 Mich. 200, 1925 Mich. LEXIS 741

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1925

DocketDocket No. 93.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 N.W. 373 (Radics v. Hayes) 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

Radics v. Hayes, 206 N.W. 373, 233 Mich. 200, 1925 Mich. LEXIS 741 (Mich. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

*202 Wiest, J.

(after stating the facts.) The errors assigned relate solely to matters not of record and, therefore, not cognizable in this court, except by a bill of exceptions. Rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, exceptions to instructions given the jury, to denial oí a motion for a new trial, and to argument of counsel, cannot be brought before this court under Rule 11, but only by a bill of exceptions duly settled and certified by the trial judge. We cannot, by writ of error, direct the circuit judge to settle a bill of exceptions. Such direction, in a proper case, must be by mandamus. See section 12635, 3 Comp. Laws 1915, for method of reviewing denial of a motion for a new trial. See General Necessities Corp. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 214 Mich. 135, holding that a motion for a new trial does not suspend the running of the time granted to settle a bill of exceptions.

The writ 'herein brings nothing to us for decision and is dismissed, with costs to defendant.

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

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

*202 Wiest, J.

(after stating the facts.) The errors assigned relate solely to matters not of record and, therefore, not cognizable in this court, except by a bill of exceptions. Rulings on the admission and exclusion of evidence, exceptions to instructions given the jury, to denial oí a motion for a new trial, and to argument of counsel, cannot be brought before this court under Rule 11, but only by a bill of exceptions duly settled and certified by the trial judge. We cannot, by writ of error, direct the circuit judge to settle a bill of exceptions. Such direction, in a proper case, must be by mandamus. See section 12635, 3 Comp. Laws 1915, for method of reviewing denial of a motion for a new trial. See General Necessities Corp. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 214 Mich. 135, holding that a motion for a new trial does not suspend the running of the time granted to settle a bill of exceptions.

The writ 'herein brings nothing to us for decision and is dismissed, with costs to defendant.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 N.W. 373, 233 Mich. 200, 1925 Mich. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/radics-v-hayes-mich-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack