Case Name: MIDWEST BRIDGE COMPANY v. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1970-05-27
Citations: 24 Mich. App. 151
Docket Number: Docket No. 7,268
Parties: MIDWEST BRIDGE COMPANY v. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Judges: Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and Danhop and O’Haka, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 24
Pages: 151–158

Head Matter:
MIDWEST BRIDGE COMPANY v. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
Opinion of the Court
1. Judgment — Summary Judgment — Motions—Contracts.
Summary judgment was properly granted where the facts were stipulated, both parties sought summary judgment, and only a question of law was involved, namely, whether on the undisputed facts defendant had breached a contract between the parties (GCR 1963, 117).
2. Appeal and Error — Statement op Questions.
The Court of Appeals has repeatedly refused to consider issues not presented for determination by the trial court and ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in or necessarily suggested by the statement of questions involved (GCR 1963, 813.1).
Dissenting Opinion O’Hara, J.
3. Judgment — Summary Judgment — Contracts—Issue of Pact.
Dispute over a contract change which substituted “brush blocks” for “safety curbs” and resulted in plaintiff pouring less con Crete than was originally called for was not a proper case for disposition by summary judgment where plaintiff alleged that it would prove that the changes were design changes rather than quantity changes, and were governed by another section of the contract than were quantity changes.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 3, 4] 41 Am Jur, Pleading §§ 340-343.
[2] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545.
4. Judgment — Summary Judgment.
Courts, in deciding whether a party has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted by summary judgment, are not concerned with what a party may or may not prove at trial but rather what it alleges it will prove (GCS 1968, 117.#[1]).
Appeal from Court of Claims, William John Beer, J.
Submitted Division 2 March 5, 1970, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 7,268.)
Decided May 27, 1970.
Complaint by Midwest Bridge Company against the State Highway Department for breach of contract. Summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Doyle & Smith (Neil L. Grossman, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and Louis J. Caruso and Karl S. Vasiloff, Assistant Attorneys General, for defendant.
Before: J. H. Gillis, P. J., and Danhop and O’Haka, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Danhop, J.
Plaintiff sued defendants in the Court of Claims on a contract between the parties. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. GCB. 1963, 117.2(1). Defendants' motion was based on the records and files and on an affidavit. The parties stipulated as to the facts, and plaintiff concluded its brief on defendants' motion for summary judgment by requesting the court to grant summary judgment in its favor for $1,461.70, stating accurately that a separate motion therefor was unnecessary under GCB 1963, 117.3. Plaintiff did not file any affidavits in support of its request. The lower court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.
On appeal plaintiff argues that the court acted outside the scope, power and policy of GCB 1963, 117.2(1) and 117.2(3), and that there was a substantial question of fact which precluded granting summary judgment under either GCB 1963, 117.2(1) or 117.2(3). Plaintiff's arguments are without merit. This case presents a classic example of the proper use of summary judgment. The facts were stipulated. Both parties sought summary judgment. Only a question of law was involved, namely, whether on the undisputed facts defendant had breached the contract between the parties.
During oral argument, plaintiff's attorney argued that 1.04.05 of the Michigan State Highway Department's 1965 standard specifications for road and bridge construction should apply. However, this was not argued in the brief filed in the Court of Claims, nor in the brief filed in the Court of Appeals. This Court has repeatedly refused to consider issues not presented for determination by the trial court. Haggerty v. MacGregor (1968), 9 Mich App 671, 674; Hileman v. Indreica (1969), 15 Mich App 662, 668 (leave to appeal granted, 383 Mich 751). Also, ordinarily no point will be considered which is not set forth in or necessarily suggested by the statement of questions involved. GCR 1963, 813.1.
Affirmed, costs to defendants.
J. H. Gillis, P. J., concurred.
As amended December 7, 1966, effective March 1, 1967. See 378 Mich lxvi, lxvii. ' •'