Legal Opinion
Monger v. New Era Ass'n
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided September 20, 1906No. Docket No. 26PublishedCited by 6 opinions
Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Assumpsit by Maria Monger against the New Era Association on a benefit certificate. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtHooker, J.
The appellee’s brief begins with the statement:
“The statement of facts in appellant’s brief is partial and incorrect. However, since the facts are few, and the inaccuracies and discrepancies can be pointed out in the argument, we deem it unnecessary to present a statement of them here.”
This is not a compliance with the spirit of Sup. Ct. Rule 40, though perhaps it is with the letter, if the alleged inaccuracies are pointed out anywhere in his brief. It is a convenience to the court to have them presented at the beginning of appellee’s brief, and that practice should be followed.
As stated in…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Denison v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Citizens' Life-Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- McEwan v. ZimmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
- Turrill v. WalkerMichigan Supreme Court · 1856
- Baxter v. GroveMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Crabtree v. Aetna Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1937
- State Ex Rel. Coonley v. HallSupreme Court of Missouri · 1922
- Hunter v. Township of DwightMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
- Preferred Automobile Insurance v. Oakland Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- Knights of the Modern Maccabees v. Commissioner of InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.