Goldsmith v. Lichtenberg
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Donovan J. Assumpsit by William E. Goldsmith against F. William Lichtenberg and Christian J. Lichtenberg, copartners as Lichtenberg & Sons, for goods sold and delivered. There was judgment for defendants on a verdict directed by the court, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.
The bill of exceptions in this case leaves something to be desired. It is certified that it contains all the testimony taken bearing upon or material -to any of the assignments of error. No witness except the plaintiff was sworn. A verdict for defendants was directed, and the substantial error assigned in this order and direction of the court.
In such cases it is usual, and, indeed, generally necessary, to incorporate in the bill of exceptions the substance, at least, of all the testimony, since error is not presumed, but must be made affirmatively to appear. But the record sets out so much of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Fire Ins. Assn., Ltd. v. WickhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Tanner v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Kern Brewing Co. v. Royal InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Leeson v. AndersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Mortlock v. WilliamsMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Whittaker Chain Tread Co. v. Standard Auto Supply Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1913
- Puett v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1952
- Eisenberg v. C. F. Battenfeld Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Urben v. Public BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
- Brusseau v. Potter's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1921
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.