Legal Opinion

Pray v. Cadwell

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1883PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Clinton. (Lovell, J.) Beplevin. Defendants bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtGraves, C. J.

On a former occasion we reviewed this cause and ordered a new trial. 41 Mich. 307. The trial so ordered having taken place and the plaintiff having again recovered a second review is demanded. The controversy is sufficiently explained in the report cited.

Many errors are alleged, but it would be a waste of time to go into details. The court seems to have tried the case with considerable care and to have conformed to our opinion. We see no rulings in regard to evidence which were not warranted by the discretion of the judge, and the charge was very full and entirely fair. In all its material…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Spring Co. v. EdgarSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  2. Cadwell v. PrayMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Cadwell v. PrayMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992

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

Powered by the Exa API