Lee v. Marsh
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Livingston. Circuit. This was an action of ejectment. The case was tried without a jury. During the trial, no exceptions whatever were taken, but at the close of the evidence, the defendant below requested the Court to make a special finding upon certain propositions of law, which he stated. The Court, at a subsequent term, declared orally that the plaintiffs should recover, whereupon judgment' was entered in the usual form for the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Error to Livingston. Circuit. This was an action of ejectment. The case was tried without a jury. During the trial, no exceptions whatever were taken, but at the close of the evidence, the defendant below requested the Court to make a special finding upon certain propositions of law, which he stated. The Court, at a subsequent term, declared orally that the plaintiffs should recover, whereupon judgment' was entered in the usual form for the plaintiffs. No written finding was made by the Court other than the judgment; no steps were taken by the defendant, under Circuit Court Rules 87, 88, 89…
1Per curiam
The record in this case shows, that on the trial, the counsel for the defendant made demand, in accordance with the statute, that the Circuit Judge should make a special finding upon certain law points, which were enumerated by the counsel in making his demand, and which would necessarily require of the Judge; that he should make such a finding of facts as would properly present the law points. By this demand, he became entitled of right to have such a finding, and it was error in the Gourt not to make it.
It is objected, however, that the defendant below did not put himself in position to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. FerrySupreme Court of Kansas · 1882
- Insurance Co. of North America v. TaylorSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
- People of Michigan v. Aaron Scott MienkwicMichigan Court of Appeals · 2021