Socha v. Socha

Michigan Court of Appeals

Socha v. Socha

176 N.W.2d 693, 22 Mich. App. 8, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1924

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 23, 1970

DocketDocket No. 5,829

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 176 N.W.2d 693 (Socha v. Socha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Socha v. Socha, 176 N.W.2d 693, 22 Mich. App. 8, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1924 (Mich. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from an amended default judgment entered on his motion in the trial court. On appeal, plaintiff raises and briefs four issues as the basis for appellate relief.

A review of the record presented to this Court indicates, at least inferentially, that the amended de[9]*9fault judgment appealed from was the result of cooperation, negotiation and participation on the part of counsel for both parties. In our view, plaintiff’s present, uncorroborated statement that he moved for entry of that judgment in order to obtain a final reviewable judgment does not overcome the record inference. ¥e are not persuaded that plaintiff is not seeking appellate relief from the relief he sought and consented to in the trial court. This may not he done. Dora v. Lesinski (1958), 351 Mich 579.

We find it is unnecessary to discuss this case further.

Affirmed with costs to defendant.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff appeals from an amended default judgment entered on his motion in the trial court. On appeal, plaintiff raises and briefs four issues as the basis for appellate relief.

A review of the record presented to this Court indicates, at least inferentially, that the amended de[9]*9fault judgment appealed from was the result of cooperation, negotiation and participation on the part of counsel for both parties. In our view, plaintiff’s present, uncorroborated statement that he moved for entry of that judgment in order to obtain a final reviewable judgment does not overcome the record inference. ¥e are not persuaded that plaintiff is not seeking appellate relief from the relief he sought and consented to in the trial court. This may not he done. Dora v. Lesinski (1958), 351 Mich 579.

We find it is unnecessary to discuss this case further.

Affirmed with costs to defendant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 N.W.2d 693, 22 Mich. App. 8, 1970 Mich. App. LEXIS 1924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/socha-v-socha-michctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack