Case Name: Alfred E. Underhill et al v. Muskegon Booming Co.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1881-01-28
Citations: 45 Mich. 496
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alfred E. Underhill et al v. Muskegon Booming Co.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 45
Pages: 496–496

Head Matter:
Alfred E. Underhill et al v. Muskegon Booming Co.
Costs for vexatious litigation.
Where costs for vexatious litigation are not applied for, the affirmance of judgment against a plaintiff who has made out no case, will not necessarily give more than ordinary costs.
Error to Muskegon.
Submitted J an. 26.
Decided Jan. 28.
Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error.
Affirmed.
Stephenson db MoLomghlvn for plaintiffs in error.
Smith, Hims, Hoyt db Mnoim, for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Campbell, J.
This case in no respects differs from what it was when formerly before us. Underhill v. Muskegon Booming Co. 40 Mich. 660; Muskegon Boomimg Co. v. Underhill 43 Mich. 629. The plaintiff made out no case whatever, and judgment was properly rendered against him. The attempt in this way to protract litigation is a grievance to the defendant, but as no application is made for more than ordinary costs the judgment is affirmed with costs.
The other Justices concurred.