Case Name: OGONTZ SCHOOL v. SPENCE
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1933-01-03
Citations: 261 Mich. 518
Docket Number: Docket No. 177, Calendar No. 36,660
Parties: OGONTZ SCHOOL v. SPENCE.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Potter, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 518–519

Head Matter:
OGONTZ SCHOOL v. SPENCE.
Appeal and Error — Questions Reviewable — Directed Verdict.
On appeal from judgment on directed verdict, Supreme Court could not pass on “questions involved,” but could only affirm judgment, where record, although containing judgment, does not otherwise disclose that trial was had.
Appeal from St. Joseph; Jacobs (Theo T.), J.
Submitted October 20, 1932.
(Docket No. 177, Calendar No. 36,660.)
Decided January 3, 1933.
Rehearing denied March 2, 1933.
Assumpsit by Ogontz School, a Pennsylvania corporation, ag’ainst O. L. Spence for breach of a boarding school contract for maintenance and education of defendant’s daughter. Directed verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
J. Paul Wait (Saul, Ewing, Remide & Saul, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Raymond H. Dresser, for defendant.

Opinion:
Sharpe, J.
In its declaration filed herein, the plaintiff seeks damages for breach of an agreement entered into by the defendant with it for the maintenance and education of defendant's daughter for the year beginning in October, 1930, and ending in May, 1931. The answer of the defendant denied liability.
While the record contains a verdict for the defendant, directed by the court, and judgment entered thereon, it does not otherwise disclose that a trial was had. Two depositions, taken in Philadelphia, on which the plaintiff relies, are printed in the record, but it does not appear that they were offered or received in evidence. Counsel for appellee in his brief calls attention to this defect in the record, and no reply has been made thereto by counsel for the appellant.
On the record as filed in this court and printed, we cannot pass upon the "questions involved," and, in the performance of our duty as an appellate court, can but affirm the judgment.
McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Potter, North, Fead, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.