Case ID: mich_310/html/0392-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Wiest, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ST. JOHN v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
    1. Appeal and Error — Certificate of Circuit Judge — Wage Differential.
    In action by woman against employer for balance of wages due her and her 28 women assignors, denial of circuit judge that he had employed a wage differential generally to all claimants, as asserted by defendant, was supported by statement of method employed as contained in supplemental certificate, made after remand to conform to court rule (Court Rule.No. 37, §11 [c] [1933]).
    2. Same — General Objection — Supreme Court — Record.
    In action by woman claimant for balance of wages due her and her 28 women assignors, wherein by way of supplemental certificate of circuit judge amount due each of the claimants appears as well as method employed in computation, Supreme Court is not obligated to make independent search of voluminous record to ascertain whether circuit judge was in error upon a general objection to the computation made by the defendant.
    Appeal from Ingham; Hayden (Charles H.), J.
    Submitted October 10, 1944.
    (Docket No. 72, Calendar No. 42,459.)
    Decided January 2, 1945.
    
      Action by Florence St. John against General Motors Corporation to recover balance' of wages due. Judgment for plaintiff. On appeal, case remanded to circuit court for compliance witb Court Rule'No. 37, §11 (c) (1933). Certification by circuit judge.
    Affirmed.
    
      Pierce, Planch & Ramsey, for plaintiff.
    
      Henry M. Hogan (Henry S. Benjamin, Jr., of counsel), for defendant.
   Wiest, J.

In St. John v. General Motors Corp., 308 Mich. 333, we stated tbe issues involved, settled tbe law of tbe case and, under Court Rule No. 72 (1933), remanded tbe case to tbe circuit court for compliance, upon tbe record made, witb Court Rule No. 37, § 11 (c) (1933), and certify tbe same to tbis court, sucb matter to be added to tbe record in tbis court. In compliance witb tbis ord.er tbe circuit judge bas filed bis certificate stating tbe method and manner of bis computation of tbe amount due each of tbe 29 claimants. Under bis findings there is due plaintiff tbe sum of $55,690, and judgment bas been entered thereon.

Counsel for defendant insist tbe court employed a differential, general to all tbe women employees. Tbis is denied by tbe circuit judge and bis denial is supported by bis statement of tbe method be employed.

Tbe certificate has been read and tbe specific findings therein appear to be supported by tbe evidence. Inasmuch as counsel for defendant does not point out error in any specific instance we accept tbe findings of tbe circuit judge. Tbe computation covering tbe employment of 29 women, some of them over a period of six years previous to commencement, of suit, was most difficult but tbe circuit judge apparently gave it careful consideration and, upon general objection thereto by defendant, we are not obligated to make independent search of the voluminous record to ascertain whether the judge, in any instance, was in error. While exceptions to the findings were not necessary it was for defendant to specifically point out error calling for reversal.

Under the record as it now stands we' affirm the judgment of the'court below, with costs to plaintiff.

Starr, C. J., and North, Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, and Reid, JJ., concurred. Butzel, J., did not sit.