Case Name: HAAS v. MALTO-GRAPO CO.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1909-11-05
Citations: 158 Mich. 508
Docket Number: Docket No. 93
Parties: HAAS v. MALTO-GRAPO CO.
Judges: Blair, C. J„ and Moore, McAlvay, and Brooke, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 158
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
HAAS v. MALTO-GRAPO CO.
Appeal and Error — Stare Decisis.
The questions involved in this appeal are determined and concluded by the decision on a former appeal; Haas v. Malio-Cfrapo Co., 148 Mich. 858 (111 N. W. 1059).
Error to Van Burén; Des Voignes, J.
Submitted October 15, 1909.
(Docket No. 93.)
Decided November 5, 1909.
Assumpsit by W. E. Haas against the Malto-Grapo Company, Limited, for breach of a contract of employment. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.
Affirmed.
Thomas J. Cavanaugh and Benjamin F. Heelcert, for appellant.
Anderson & Warner, for appellee.

Opinion:
Grant, J.
The contract and issue involved in. this litigation are fully stated in 148 Mich. 358 (111 N. "W. 1059). Upon a new trial the jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff for $251.32. The defendant, alleging error, has brought the case to this court for review.
In the former opinion the contract was construed, and the court established rules upon which the case should be submitted to the jury upon a new trial. The learned judge submitted the case to the jury in strict accordance with the opinion of this court. All the items now challenged by the defendant were challenged and involved in the former trial. Counsel for defendant have not, either in their brief or oral argument, stated wherein the record now before us differs from the former record. It appears that there was some additional testimony, but of the same nature and character as that given upon the first trial. The new testimony in no respect changes the rule of law. All'the questions involved in the former suit are stare decisis, and examination of the two records convinces us that the issues were the same, and the testimony was in no essential particular different. It is therefore unimportant to enter upon a discussion of the points now raised. They are all disposed of in accordance with the former opinion.
The judgment is therefore affirmed.
Blair, C. J" and Moore, McAlvay, and Brooke, JJ., concurred.