Case ID: mich_146/html/0197-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ostrander, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IRONTON CROSS TIE CO. v. EVANS.
    Saving Questions foe Review — Exceptions — Necessity to Review Findings.
    Where, in. a case tried to the court without a jury, no exceptions are taken to any of the findings, and it is not assigned as error, or contended, that the facts found do not support the conclusions of law, assignments of error in the admission and rejection of testimony, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support particular findings, cannot be reviewed.
    Error to Kent; Perkins, J.
    Submitted June 15, 1906.
    (Docket No. 7.)
    Decided October 29, 1906.
    Assumpsit by the Ironton Cross Tie Company against Howard E. Evans and John L. Retting, copartners as H. E. Evans & Company, for breach of a contract for the sale of certain ties. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Smedley & Corwin, for appellants.
    
      Smith & Ayer, for appellee.
   Ostrander, J.

The case was tried without a jury, and the court made findings of fact and of law. The record is certified to contain all of the evidence given upon the trial. Nineteen errors, fourteen of which relate to the admission or rejection of testimony, are assigned. • It is claimed, also, that there is no evidence to support the third, and no competent evidence to support the fourth, fifth, and sixth findings of fact. No exceptions were taken to any of the findings, and it is not assigned as error, or contended, that the facts found do not support the conclusion of law.

The judgment must be affirmed upon the authority of Weist v. Morlock, 116 Mich. 606; Stafford v. Crawford, 118 Mich. 285; Circuit Court Rule No. 26.

McAlvay, Grant, Blair, and Moore, JJ., concurred.