Case ID: mich_164/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ostrander, O. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARKEY v. MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE CO.
    1. Appeal and Error — Prejudice—1Trial,
    Prejudicial error is not shown, on the trial of a cause before the court without a jury, by the admission of testimony which the trial court stated was, in his opinion, inadmissible, and which does not affirmatively appear to have affected the result.
    2. Same — Findings oe Fact and Law — Questions Reviewable. ’
    Alleged errors of the court, in a cause tried without a jury, are not reviewable, where no findings of fact or law were requested or made, and the assignments merely allege error in rendering judgment for the defendant.
    Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J.
    Submitted October 13, 1910.
    (Docket No. 58.)
    Decided February 1, 1911.
    Assumpsit by Jennie H. Markey and A. Ottilie Comfort, against the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company, of Newark, New Jersey. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Charles Engelhard, for appellants.
    
      Bowen, Douglas & Eaman, for appellee.
   Ostrander, O. J.

The cause was tried by the court. No findings of fact or of law were requested or were made. A judgment was rendered for defendant. There are twelve assignments of error, six of which purport to be based upon rulings admitting testimony over plaintiffs’ objections, and six of which allege, in substance and effect, that it was error to render a judgment for defendant. It appears from the record that the first assignment is not based upon an exception, nor was the question objected to answered by the witness. The second is based upon no exception to the ruling. As to two others, the court stated that the testimony was not, in his judgment, admissible, but it was admitted. As to all of the first six, it may be said that it is not pointed out how the testimony affected the result to plaintiffs’ injury. Under the long-settled practice, the second group of errors cannot be considered. Haines v. Saviers, 93 Mich. 440 (53 N. W. 531); Township of Cumming v. Schick, 94 Mich. 222 (54 N. W. 40); Child v. City of Jackson, 93 Mich. 503 (53 N. W. 629); In re Estate of Buchan, 100 Mich. 219 (58 N. W. 1003); McDonell v. Union Trust Co., 139 Mich. 386 (102 N. W. 953).

The judgment is affirmed.

Bird, Brooke, Blair, and Stone, JJ., concurred.