Case Name: BROWN v. SMEDLEY
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1904-03-15
Citations: 136 Mich. 70
Docket Number: Docket No. 49
Parties: BROWN v. SMEDLEY.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 136
Pages: 70–71

Head Matter:
BROWN v. SMEDLEY.
Trial — Consolidation of Causes — Agreement of Counsel-Judgment.
On the trial of the preceding case similarly entitled, plaintiff’s counsel remarked, “ The case following this is identical, and the testimony in this case, if there is no objection, we can agree will be the testimony in the next casewhereupon the court observed, “And the judgment in one be the judgment in the other,” and defendant’s counsel stated, “And the bond filed covers both cases.” Held, to justify the entry of a judgment in the second case similar to the one entered in the cause tried.
Error to Wayne; Donovan, J.
Submitted January 15, 1904.
(Docket No. 49.)
Decided March 15, 1904.
Assumpsit by Edward O. Brown against John H. Smedley on a promissory note. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
George P. Codd, for appellant.
Harry Helfman {Alfred Lucking, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion:
Carpenter, J.
This case is like the preceding case between the same parties. After defendant had obtained a judgment in that case, the trial court entered a judgment for him in this case. The affirmance of that case leaves but one question to be considered in this, viz., Was it agreed that this suit should abide the result of the trial in the other case ? On the trial of the other case this occurred:
"Mr. Shepherd (counsel for plaintiff): I might say, in connection with this case, that the case following this [the case at bar] is identical. The testimony in this case, if there is no objection, we can agree will be the testimony in the next case.
" The Court: And the judgment in one be the judgment in the other.
"Mr. Helfman (counsel for defendant): And the bond filed covers both cases."
We think it is to be inferred from this quotation that counsel for both parties assented to the statement of the court that "the judgment in one [case] be the judgment in the other."
The judgment is affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.