Case ID: mich_213/html/0662-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Clark, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SIMON v. ZAREVICH.
    Appeal and Error — Exceptions-—Findings op Fact and Law— Review.
    Where, in a cause tried before the court without a jury, there were no findings of fact and law, and no exception taken to the opinion of the court, there is nothing for the appellate court to review, under Circuit Court Rule No. 45, and 3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 12586, 12587, nor may the Supreme Court examine the testimony to determine whether it supports the judgment.
    Error to Wayne; Webster (Clyde I.), J.
    Submitted January 4, 1921.
    (Docket No. 26.)
    Decided March 30, 1921.
    Assumpsit in justice’s court by James J. Simon .against Ljubica Zarevich for the amount of a judgment. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appealed to the circuit court. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Ira J. Pettiford, for appellant.
    
      C. H. & G. M. Lehman, for appellee.
   Clark, J.

In this cause, tried without a jury, there are no findings of fact and law. In a colloquy between court and counsel at the conclusion of the trial the court stated his views upon one question in the case but no exception was taken to the opinion announced. There is nothing before us to review. Circuit Court Rule No. 45; sections 12586, 12587, 3 Comp. Laws 1915; Wilson v. Hugus, 163 Mich. 577; Sparling v. Smeltzer, 140 Mich. 461; Kooman v. DeJonge, 186 Mich. 292; Messer v. Dornbus, 210 Mich. 46. And in such cases we cannot examine the testimony to see whether it supports the judgment. See McDonell v. Union Trust Co., 139 Mich. 386, and cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.

Steers, C. J., and Moore, Fellows, Stone, Bird, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.

The late Justice Brooke took no part in this decision.