Case ID: mich_94/html/0222-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Montgomery, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Township of Cumming v. Joseph Schick et al.
    
      Practice in Supreme Court — Findings of trial judge.
    
    This case is ruled by Haines v. Saviers, 93 Mich. 440.
    Error to Ogemaw. (Simpson, J.)
    Argued November 30, 1892.
    Decided December 22, 1892.
    
      Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    The facts are stated in the opinion.
    
      F. L. Snodgrass, for appellant.
    
      Sharpe & Sharpe, for defendants.
   Montgomery, J.

The record in this case contains the testimony offered on the trial and the judgment. No exceptions were taken to rulings on the trial, but it is sought to review the conclusion of the trial judge upon the whole testimony, though no findings of fact or of law were requested. Under these circumstances we cannot review the conclusions reached by the trial judge. We have no means of knowing definitely the grounds upon which the trial judge proceeded. The defeated party has not a right to a trial de novo in this Court. The case is ruled by Haines v. Saviers, 93 Mich. 440, and cases cited.

Judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.