Case ID: mich_156/html/0136-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moore, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

NICHOL v. WARD.
    Appeal and Error — Exceptions—Necessity.
    Where, in a case tried before the court without a jury, no objection was made, nor exception taken, to the admission of testimony,, no request for findings of fact and law, nor exception taken to the rendition of judgment, under Circuit Court Rule 26, there is nothing for an appellate court to review.
    Error to Ionia; Davis, J.
    Submitted January 20, 1909.
    (Docket No. 132.)
    Decided March 30, 1909.
    Assumpsit by John Nichol, receiver of the Citizens’ Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Jackson, against Rachel M. Ward for assessments due upon certain policies of insurance. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
    
      D. P. Bagendorph, for appellant.
    
      George E. Nichols (John Nichol, of counsel), for appellee.
   Moore, J.

The plaintiff sued to recover for two assessments which it was claimed were due from defendant upon two policies of insurance which had been issued in her name. The case was tried before the judge without a jury. He rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $14.37. The case is brought here by writ of error.

A number of defenses were interposed in the court below, and a good many questions are argued in this court. The disposition of a preliminary question must, however, dispose of the case. No objection was made, and no exception taken, to the admission of testimony. At the conclusion of the testimony a motion was made to dismiss the case. No request was made for special findings of fact and law by the judge. He took the motion under advisement, and later rendered the judgment before stated. No exceptions were taken to the rendition of judgment. No special findings of fact and law; have been made. The record does not comply with Circuit Court Rule 26. There is nothing in this court to review. See the many cases cited in the note to the rule.

Judgment is affirmed.

Blair, C. J., and Grant, Montgomery, and Mc-Alvay, JJ., concurred.