Ross v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Ross v. City of Detroit

56 N.W. 11, 96 Mich. 447, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 789

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 25, 1893

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 56 N.W. 11 (Ross v. City of Detroit) 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

Ross v. City of Detroit, 56 N.W. 11, 96 Mich. 447, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 789 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, J.

This suit was instituted by Martha Ross. Upon her death the plaintiff, her executor, was duly admitted to prosecute the suit.

The declaration alleges that her claim for damages was presented to the common council for audit and allowance, and was rejected. Upon the trial this claim made by Mrs. Ross to the common council was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff. It stated that “she has decided to limit her claim to the sum of $2,000 on the basis of a prompt adjustment, but* without prejudice to her rights in the event of a suit.” During the trial, negotiations were entered upon for a settlement, and the trial was postponed, for that purpose. The negotiations, however, failed.

Counsel for the defendant, in his argument to the jury, said that they should not allow larger damages than she herself demanded. Counsel for the plaintiff, in his closing argument, said: “Why, gentlemen of the^jury, the city counselor himself has recommended to the council that a larger sum than this -be paid.” This statement was objected and excepted to, and the circuit judge made no comment to the jury upon it. There was no evidence in the case upon which to base such a statement, and it could hardly fail to prejudice the jury.

For this error the case must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Grant, J.

This suit was instituted by Martha Ross. Upon her death the plaintiff, her executor, was duly admitted to prosecute the suit.

The declaration alleges that her claim for damages was presented to the common council for audit and allowance, and was rejected. Upon the trial this claim made by Mrs. Ross to the common council was introduced in evidence by the plaintiff. It stated that “she has decided to limit her claim to the sum of $2,000 on the basis of a prompt adjustment, but* without prejudice to her rights in the event of a suit.” During the trial, negotiations were entered upon for a settlement, and the trial was postponed, for that purpose. The negotiations, however, failed.

Counsel for the defendant, in his argument to the jury, said that they should not allow larger damages than she herself demanded. Counsel for the plaintiff, in his closing argument, said: “Why, gentlemen of the^jury, the city counselor himself has recommended to the council that a larger sum than this -be paid.” This statement was objected and excepted to, and the circuit judge made no comment to the jury upon it. There was no evidence in the case upon which to base such a statement, and it could hardly fail to prejudice the jury.

For this error the case must be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.W. 11, 96 Mich. 447, 1893 Mich. LEXIS 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-city-of-detroit-mich-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack