Case ID: mich_45/html/0496-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Campbell, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfred E. Underhill et al v. Muskegon Booming Co.
    
      Costs for vexatious litigation.
    
    Where costs for vexatious litigation are not applied for, the affirmance of judgment against a plaintiff who has made out no case, will not necessarily give more than ordinary costs.
    Error to Muskegon.
    Submitted J an. 26.
    Decided Jan. 28.
    Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Stephenson db MoLomghlvn for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Smith, Hims, Hoyt db Mnoim, for defendant in error.
   Campbell, J.

This case in no respects differs from what it was when formerly before us. Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co. 40 Mich. 660; Muskegon Boomimg Co. v. Underhill 43 Mich. 629. The plaintiff made out no case whatever, and judgment was properly rendered against him. The attempt in this way to protract litigation is a grievance to the defendant, but as no application is made for more than ordinary costs the judgment is affirmed with costs.

The other Justices concurred.