Case Name: Adolph Leitelt et al. v. William E. Parker et al.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1882-04-25
Citations: 48 Mich. 297
Docket Number: 
Parties: Adolph Leitelt et al. v. William E. Parker et al.
Judges: Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
Adolph Leitelt et al. v. William E. Parker et al.
Review on findings without exceptions.
Where no exceptions are taken in a case tried without a jury the only question on error is whether the finding of facts supports the judgment.
The Supreme Court will not inquire into apparent inconsistencies in a finding of facts where the final result supports the judgment and no exceptions are taken.
Error to Kent.
Submitted Apr. 19.
Decided Apr. 25,
Assumpsit for labor and materials furnished in repairing a boiler. Defendants filed a claim for recoupment of damages on the ground that soon after the work was done the boiler leaked as badly as ever. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and the judge gave judgment for plaintiffs on a finding that the work was done in a workmanlike manner and the labor and materials furnished were firstjclass, though he also found that within a few days after the repairs were completed the boiler began to leak and in two or three months leaked nearly as badly as before. Defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
A. J. Southard and Turner & Oarroll for appellants.
Particular findings must govern: Keeler v. Robertson 27 Mich. 126; one cannot recover in assumpsit for labor that does not benefit the person for whom it was done: Taft v. Montague 14 Mass. 281; Sinclair v. Bowles 9 B. & C. 92; Wade v. Haycock 25 Penn. St. 382; Union Hide and Leather Co. v. Reissig 48 Ill. 75; Pullman v. Corning 14 Barb. 174; Conery v. Noyes 17 La. Ann. 201; Heaston v. Colgrove 3 Ind. 265; Robinson v. Brinson 20 Tex. 440.
J. W. & O. C. Ransom for appellees.

Opinion:
Marston, J.
As no exceptions were taken • in this case, the only question raised is whether the finding of facts supports the judgment.
Although the court finds the manner in which the work was done, and that after its completion the boiler leaked, yet we cannot inquire into these matters on this record. The court did find that the work and labor performed and' the materials furnished were first class; that the boiler was repaired in a good and workmanlike manner and was reasonably worth the price charged therefor.
This finding is controlling, and the court having found the balance due and rendered judgment therefor, the same-must be affirmed with costs.
Cooley and Campbell, JJ. concurred.