Case ID: mich_186/html/0303-01.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

NIAGARA SPRAYER CO. v. WOOD.
    1. Appeal and Error — Record — Exceptions — Assignments oe Error — Index.
    The Supreme Court, on error to the trial of an action at law before the court sitting without a jury, will not review assignments of error relating to the admission or rejection of testimony if the record does not conform to Supreme Court Rule 36 by containing an index of the place where such exceptions are to be found, the omission not being supplied in the brief for appellant, which also contained no argument addressed to such assignments of error.
    2. Same — Record—Bill of Exceptions.
    The objection of appellant to the size of the record on appeal, claiming that the opposite party had added unnecessarily to thé length of the proposed bill of exceptions by his amendments, cannot be considered in the absence of some showing or information as to the number of pages which were added unduly and no objection appearing to the action of the trial court in amending the record.
    Error to Oceana; Sullivan, J., presiding.
    Submitted April 7, 1915.
    (Docket No. 10.)
    Decided June 7, 1915.
    Assumpsit by Niagara Sprayer Company against Susie M. Wood upon a promissory note. There was a claim of recoupment. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      F. E. Wetmore, for appellant.
    
      A. S. Hinds, for appellee.
   Per Curiam.

The action is assumpsit. The trial was before the court without a jury. Findings of fact and law were made and filed. These the plaintiff moved to amend and the motion was denied. There are 14 assignments of error, 4 of which relate to rulings admitting or rejecting testimony. The index to the record does not show where the exceptions (if there were exceptions) upon which these are predicated may be found in the record. Nor is the omission supplied in the brief for appellant, nor is there argument addressed to these assignments.

This court has sometimes, as matter of grace, assumed the labor of looking up the exceptions in the record. Mills v. Warner, 167 Mich. 619 (133 N. W. 494); Yanelli v. Littlejohn, 172 Mich. 91 (137 N. W. 723). It has refused to consider such assignments. Duff v. Judson, 160 Mich. 386, 391 (125 N. W. 371). Supreme Court Rule 36 is not ambiguous, and would seem- to have been frequently enough pressed upon the attention of counsel.

All other assignments of error are addressed to the findings. None of them alleges that the findings of fact are not supported by some testimony, nor that the facts found do not support the conclusions of law. There is therefore nothing for this court to review. See Circuit Court Rule 26 and Stevens’ notes thereto and the large number of similar rulings made since those notes were published.

The judgment is affirmed. Appellant, in the brief, objects to the size of the record, complaining that much of it is unnecessary and was added to his proposed bill of exceptions on motion of appellee. The record appears to be much too large, but we are not referred to any page thereof where appellant’s objections to amending it are to be found, and cannot separate the bill of exceptions it proposed from the bill as settled.