Case Name: THE GRAY EAGLES, INC v. LUCCHESI
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-09-27
Citations: 50 Mich. App. 82
Docket Number: Docket No. 14938
Parties: THE GRAY EAGLES, INC v LUCCHESI
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Quinn and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 50
Pages: 82–83

Head Matter:
THE GRAY EAGLES, INC v LUCCHESI
New Trial — Appellate Courts — Trial Courts — Limits of New Trial.
A trial court is proscribed from exceeding the specified limits set by an appellate court when the appellate court orders a new trial and specifies the limits thereof.
Reference for Points in Headnote
58 Am Jur 2d, New Trial §§ 24-28.
Appeal from Houghton, Stephen D. Condon, J.
Submitted Division 3 June 28, 1973, at Menominee.
(Docket No. 14938.)
Decided September 27, 1973.
Complaint by The Gray Eagles, Inc., against Geno Lucchesi for damages to its airplane. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. Reversed and remanded for trial as to plaintiff’s bailment theory of strict liability. The trial court ordered the trial limited to plaintiff’s bailment theory of strict liability. Plaintiff appeals by leave granted.
Affirmed.
Wisti & Jaaskelainen (by Phillip L. Kukkonen), for plaintiff.
McLean & McCarthy, for defendant.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and Quinn and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case has been previously ap pealed to this Court, The Gray Eagles, Inc v Lucchesi, 37 Mich App 322; 194 NW2d 373 (1971). The case was ordered, "Reversed and remanded for trial as to plaintiffs bailment theory of strict liability". On retrial, the trial court ordered the trial limited to plaintiffs bailment theory of strict liability. Plaintiff took this interlocutory appeal contending the reversal and remand was for a complete new trial, including plaintiffs negligence theory.
This is a recurring problem. It should be laid to rest. When an appellate court specifies the limits of a new trial as it did in this case, the trial court is proscribed from exceeding those specified limits.
The trial judge was correct. We affirm. Costs to the defendant.
The Gray Eagles, Inc v Lucchesi, 37 Mich App 322, 324; 194 NW2d 373, 374 (1971).