Sparling v. Smeltzer

Michigan Supreme Court

Sparling v. Smeltzer

103 N.W. 1131, 140 Mich. 461, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 590

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJune 8, 1905

DocketDocket No. 110

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 103 N.W. 1131 (Sparling v. Smeltzer) 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

Sparling v. Smeltzer, 103 N.W. 1131, 140 Mich. 461, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 590 (Mich. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

This action is replevin for a cow and calf owned by plaintiff and held by defendant, who claimed they were estrays. The case was tried without a jury. No findings of fact or of law were requested, or were made. [462]*462The court, at the conclusion of the trial, stated his views generally, and these remarks are in the record. No exceptions were taken to any of the conclusions announced. The errors assigned are based upon rulings made in admitting and rejecting evidence, and upon the opinion of the court and the entry of judgment. As to the first, wg have examined them, and are not convinced that any error was committed. As to the others, the case is ruled by McDonell v. Union Trust Co., 139 Mich. 386, and cases therein cited.

The judgment below must be affirmed.

Moore, C. J., and Grant, Blair, and Montgomery, JJ., concurred.

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

Ostrander, J.

This action is replevin for a cow and calf owned by plaintiff and held by defendant, who claimed they were estrays. The case was tried without a jury. No findings of fact or of law were requested, or were made. [462]*462The court, at the conclusion of the trial, stated his views generally, and these remarks are in the record. No exceptions were taken to any of the conclusions announced. The errors assigned are based upon rulings made in admitting and rejecting evidence, and upon the opinion of the court and the entry of judgment. As to the first, wg have examined them, and are not convinced that any error was committed. As to the others, the case is ruled by McDonell v. Union Trust Co., 139 Mich. 386, and cases therein cited.

The judgment below must be affirmed.

Moore, C. J., and Grant, Blair, and Montgomery, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.W. 1131, 140 Mich. 461, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparling-v-smeltzer-mich-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack