Case Name: WICKES v. PULFREY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1902-09-17
Citations: 131 Mich. 407
Docket Number: Docket No. 9
Parties: WICKES v. PULFREY.
Judges: Hooker, C. J., Moore and Grant, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 131
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
WICKES v. PULFREY.
1. Appeal — Record—Findings op Fact — Review op Testimony.
Where the record on appeal in a case tried without a jury contains no findings of fact, the question of whether the testimony supports the judgment will not be considered.
3. Same — Opening Case After Judgment.
Where a ruling of the trial court on a request to open the case after judgment to permit the filing of a request for findings does not appear in the record, it. will not be considered on appeal.
Error to Clinton; Stone, J.
Submitted June 4, 1902.
(Docket No. 9.)
Decided September 17, 1902.
Assumpsit by Lyman R. Wickes against Columbus E. Pulfrey on an account stated. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
Lewis Severance, for appellant.
Will H. Brunson, for appellee.

Opinion:
Montgomery, J.
This case is brought before us for review on error. The case was tried before the court without a jury, and resulted in a judgment for defendant. No finding of facts appears in the record.
The plaintiff's brief is devoted to an argument that a different result should have been reached, the contention being that the testimony was such as entitled the plaintiff to a judgment. It has been repeatedly held that such a question cannot be considered without a finding. Plumer v. Abbey, 39 Mich. 167; Wertin v. Crocker, 47 Mich. 642 (6 N. W. 683); Morgan v. Botsford, 82 Mich. 153 (46 N. W. 230); Township of Cumming v. Schick, 94 Mich. 222 (54 N. W. 40); In re Buchan's Estate, 100 Mich. 219 (58 N. W. 1003).
In this case it is stated in plaintiff's supplemental brief that a request was made to the circuit judge, on the day after judgment was entered, to open the case, and permit a request for findings to be filed. This ruling does not appear in the record, and, if open to review by this court in any proceeding, cannot be considered on this appeal.
The judgment will be affirmed.
Hooker, C. J., Moore and Grant, JJ., concurred.