Case Name: KRAJEWSKI v. BOMMARITO
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-02-26
Citations: 16 Mich. App. 196
Docket Number: Docket No 4,978
Parties: KRAJEWSKI v. BOMMARITO
Judges: BEFORE: Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Bronson, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 16
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
KRAJEWSKI v. BOMMARITO
Appeal and Error — Questions of Pact.
Questions of faet, having been decided by the jury, provide no grounds for reversal unless there is substantial error.
Appeal from Wayne, Nathan J. Kaufman, J.
Submitted Division 1 January 13, 1969, at Detroit.
(Docket No 4,978.)
Decided February 26, 1969.
Leave to appeal denied October 15, 1969.
See 382 Mich 786.
Complaint by Fred Krajewski against John Bommarito, Ingvald Paulson, the county of Wayne, a municipal corporation, its county clerk, and Jerry McKenzie, the city of Dearborn Heights, a municipal corporation, and its city clerk, for malicious prosecution and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution. Defendant Wayne County and defendant Ingvald Paulson’s motions for summary judgment granted. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff against remaining defendants. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Manning Hathaway, for plaintiff.
Alexander, Buchanan & Conklin, for defendants.
BEFORE: Fitzgerald, P. J., and R. B. Burns and Bronson, JJ.
Reference for Points in Headnote
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 833.

Opinion:
Pee Cueiam.
Plaintiff brought action against defendants for malicious prosecution and conspiracy to commit malicious prosecution. At the close of the proofs, defendants moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and defendants moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. The trial court denied the motion, but did order a remittitur.
The trial was fair and impartial, the issues .0' law were properly considered and decided by the trial court, and the issues of fact were submitted N the jury with proper instructions.
The questions of fact, having been decided adversely to the defendant by the jury, provide n~ grounds for reversal unless there is substantial error.
A review of the record does not indicate such error, and the judgment of the trial court should be sustained.
Affirmed. Costs to appellee.