Case Name: BARNUM v. ANDREWS
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1895-07-02
Citations: 106 Mich. 81
Docket Number: 
Parties: BARNUM v. ANDREWS.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
BARNUM v. ANDREWS.
Practice — Trial Before Court Without a Jury — Record on Appeal.
Where, in a case tried before the court without a jury, no findings are requested or made, and no exceptions taken to the conduct of the proceedings, there is nothing for review by the Supreme Court.
Error to Huron; Beach, J.
Submitted June 6, 1895.
Decided July 2, 1895.
Debt by Anna M. Barnum, for the use of John F. -Murphy, against John Andrews and others, on an appeal bond. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants bring error.
Affirmed.
A. B. Avery, for appellants.
William T. Bope (Elridge F. Bacon, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion:
McGrath, C. J.
This case was tried before the court without a jury. No findings were requested or made. The assignments of error are:
"1. On the evidence given, the judgment should have been rendered for the defendants.
"2. On the evidence, the judgment should have been rendered in favor of the defendant Clark.
"3. The evidence did not warrant the judgment against the defendants.
"4. The court erred in refusing to permit the cause to be reopened and further evidence taken before the rendering of judgment."
The case is ruled by Haines v. Saviers, 93 Mich. 440, and cases cited; Township of Gumming v. Schick, 94 Mich. 222.
Some time after the cause had been submitted to the court, but before judgment, defendants asked leave to introduce the testimony of one of the defendants, who was not present at the trial, to contradict the testimony of one of the witnesses for plaintiff, but the court refused to allow the case to be reopened. No exception was taken to this determination, and we are not advised as to whether the court regarded the testimony as immaterial, or whether the determination was upon other grounds.
The judgment is affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.