Ward v. Village of Birmingham

Michigan Supreme Court

Ward v. Village of Birmingham

247 N.W. 718, 262 Mich. 466, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 900

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1933

DocketDocket No. 5, Calendar No. 36,886.

StatusPublished

This text of 247 N.W. 718 (Ward v. Village of Birmingham) 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

Ward v. Village of Birmingham, 247 N.W. 718, 262 Mich. 466, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 900 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant village to construct for it a well of certain dimension and capacity. He sued to recover on the theory that he had performed the contract. The defense is that he did not perform, chiefly in respect of filing bond and of capacity of well. The issue was submitted to a jury, who found for plaintiff. From judgment on verdict, defendant has appealed, contending that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, and that, therefore, the trial judge erred in denying a motion for new trial. *Page 467

The issue is close but simple, and the evidence quite contradictory. We have no doubt the verdict was rendered upon comprehension of the facts. Nothing will be gained by stating them further. We are in accord with the trial judge.

Affirmed.

McDONALD, C.J., and POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.

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

Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant village to construct for it a well of certain dimension and capacity. He sued to recover on the theory that he had performed the contract. The defense is that he did not perform, chiefly in respect of filing bond and of capacity of well. The issue was submitted to a jury, who found for plaintiff. From judgment on verdict, defendant has appealed, contending that the verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, and that, therefore, the trial judge erred in denying a motion for new trial. *Page 467

The issue is close but simple, and the evidence quite contradictory. We have no doubt the verdict was rendered upon comprehension of the facts. Nothing will be gained by stating them further. We are in accord with the trial judge.

Affirmed.

McDONALD, C.J., and POTTER, SHARPE, NORTH, FEAD, WIEST, and BUTZEL, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 N.W. 718, 262 Mich. 466, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-village-of-birmingham-mich-1933.