Legal Opinion

Peninsular State Bank v. First National Bank

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1928No. Docket No. 3, Calendar No. 33,617PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). In view of the fact that each party seems to insist that if its motion for a directed verdict was refused, it should have been permitted to go to the jury, attention should be called to the rule that where both parties without reservation move for a directed verdict, neither can in this court insist that the case should have gone to the jury. If the court’s decision is right in law and supported by substantial evidence, the judgment must be affirmed. Hemphill v. Orloff, 238 Mich. 508.

In the recent case of American Surety Co. v. Savings Bank, 242 Mich. 581, after a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Hemphill v. OrloffMichigan Supreme Court · 1927
  2. Crippen, Lawrence & Co. v. American National BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
  3. Heavy v. Commercial National Bank of OgdenUtah Supreme Court · 1904
  4. American Surety Co. v. Industrial Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1928

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. United States v. First Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1941
  2. City Bank v. Hamilton Nat. BankCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1939
  3. Jarecki Manufacturing Co. v. RagirMichigan Supreme Court · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API