Wickes v. Pulfrey

Michigan Supreme Court

Wickes v. Pulfrey

91 N.W. 633, 131 Mich. 407, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 660

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 17, 1902

DocketDocket No. 9

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 N.W. 633 (Wickes v. Pulfrey) 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

Wickes v. Pulfrey, 91 N.W. 633, 131 Mich. 407, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 660 (Mich. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Montgomery, J.

This case is brought before us for review on error. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for defendant. No finding of facts appears in the record.

The plaintiff’s brief is devoted to an argument that a different result should have been reached, the contention being that the testimony was such as entitled the plaintiff to a judgment. It has been repeatedly held that such a question cannot be considered without a finding. Plumer v. Abbey, 39 Mich. 167; Wertin v. Crocker, 47 Mich. 642 (6 N. W. 683); Morgan v. Botsford, 82 Mich. 153 (46 N. W. 230); Township of Cumming v. Schick, 94 Mich. 222 (54 N. W. 40); In re Buchan’s Estate, 100 Mich. 219 (58 N. W. 1003).

In this case it is stated in plaintiff’s supplemental brief that a request was made to the circuit judge, on the day after judgment was entered, to open the case, and permit a request for findings to be filed. This ruling does not appear in the record, and, if open to review by this court in any proceeding, cannot be considered on this appeal.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Grant, JJ., concurred.

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

Montgomery, J.

This case is brought before us for review on error. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for defendant. No finding of facts appears in the record.

The plaintiff’s brief is devoted to an argument that a different result should have been reached, the contention being that the testimony was such as entitled the plaintiff to a judgment. It has been repeatedly held that such a question cannot be considered without a finding. Plumer v. Abbey, 39 Mich. 167; Wertin v. Crocker, 47 Mich. 642 (6 N. W. 683); Morgan v. Botsford, 82 Mich. 153 (46 N. W. 230); Township of Cumming v. Schick, 94 Mich. 222 (54 N. W. 40); In re Buchan’s Estate, 100 Mich. 219 (58 N. W. 1003).

In this case it is stated in plaintiff’s supplemental brief that a request was made to the circuit judge, on the day after judgment was entered, to open the case, and permit a request for findings to be filed. This ruling does not appear in the record, and, if open to review by this court in any proceeding, cannot be considered on this appeal.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Grant, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.W. 633, 131 Mich. 407, 1902 Mich. LEXIS 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wickes-v-pulfrey-mich-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack