Case Name: HOTCHKISS v. WEINMANN-MATTHEWS CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1913-05-28
Citations: 175 Mich. 652
Docket Number: Docket No. 61
Parties: HOTCHKISS v. WEINMANN-MATTHEWS CO.
Judges: Steere, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 175
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
HOTCHKISS v. WEINMANN-MATTHEWS CO.
Appeal and Error — Savins Questions for Review — Exceptions.
Exceptions duly taken are essential to the review, on error, of questions raised on the trial and on motion for a new trial pursuant to 3 Comp. Laws, § 10504 (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 12965).
Error to Washtenaw; Kinne, J.
Submitted April 25, 1918.
(Docket No. 61.)
Decided May 28, 1913.
Case by Mary J. Hotchkiss against the WeinmannMatthews Company for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Lee N. Brown, for appellant.
John P. Kirk, for appellee.

Opinion:
Brooke, J.
In this case there are six assignments of error. The brief for appellant does not point out, nor does an examination of the record disclose, any exceptions upon which said assignments are based. This court can consider only such assignments of error as are founded upon exceptions duly taken.
A motion for a new trial was made and denied. No exception was taken, but error is assigned upon such denial. 3 Comp. Laws, § 10504 (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 12965), permits a review of the action of the lower court in refusing a new trial when an exception is taken, but not otherwise. Conger v. Hall, 158 Mich. 447-449 (122 N. W. 1073).
The judgment is affirmed.
Steere, C. J., and Moore, McAlvay, Kuhn, Stone, Ostrander, and Bird, JJ., concurred.