Case ID: mich_20/html/0128-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the matter of the Estate of Moses Wisner, deceased.
    
      Practice in the Supreme Court: Case made. Since the amendment of § 3138 of the Compiled Laws, by the act of 1867, this Court cannot review facts upon a case made; but this will not prevent the Court from reviewing such questions of law as the case may present, notwithstanding it appears to have been made with the purpose of reviewing the facts, as well as the law.
    
      Heard and decided April 5.
    
    
      Motion to dismiss a case made from the Oakland Circuit.
    
      O. F. Wisner moves to dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction on the^ground:
    1. It purports to be a case made after judgment, for review upon the facts, and the record shows that the case was made since the statute was passed, taking from this Court the right to review upon the facts.
    2. No exceptions to the finding of law of the Court below appear from the record to have been taken.
    
      M. B. Grofoot, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction rests upon the idea that this case made appears to have been intended to bring up for review the facts as well as the law which is mot now authorized. We cannot review the facts, but the fact that the certificate is too broad cannot do any harm. We can examine such questions of law as are raised upon the case, and disregard everything not necessary for that purpose as surplusage. That was the course pursued in Heinbach v. Weinberg, 18 Mich., R. 48, where the same redundancy existed. The motion to dismiss must be denied with costs.