Case ID: mich_244/html/0451-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Potter, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRIPPEN v. CHATTERTON.
    Conspiracy — Excessive Verdict — Conditional Affirmance.
    Where an action for conspiracy to defraud has been thrice tried, and each trial resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, and on former review the Supreme Court held that there was testimony taking the case to the jury, the judgment for $60,000 is reduced to $30,000 and affirmed conditional on plaintiff’s acceptance, or new trial granted.
    Error to Midland; Sample (George W.) J., presiding.
    Submitted May 2, 1928.
    (Docket No. 89, Calendar No. 33,554.)
    Decided October 4, 1928.
    Case by George F. Crippen against H. E. Chatterton and others for a conspiracy to defraud. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error.
    Affirmed, conditionally,
    
      Carl H. Reynolds (Knappen, Uhl & Bryant, of counsel), for appellants.
    
      MacKay, Wiley, Streeter, Smith & Tucker, H. Vic tor Spike, and F. C. Wallington, for appellee.
   Potter, J.

This case has been thrice tried. On each trial there was verdict for plaintiff. The judgment entered on the first verdict was reversed in Crippen v. Chatterton, 228 Mich. 532, where the facts are discussed. The judgment here reviewed on error was' for $60,000. When the case was here before, this court said: “We think there was testimony in the case taking it to the jury.” Additional facts, which it is unnecessary to recite, were adduced. Plaintiff, in his original declaration, claimed damages not exceeding $50,000. He evaluated his patents in his testimony on the present trial at $35,000. The patents and property turned in by plaintiff to the company to be organized were valued in the original contract at $20,000.

If, within 30 days, plaintiff so elects, the judgment herein will be affirmed at $30,000 with costs. If not, it will be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Fead, C. J., and North, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.