Case Name: LASLEY v. PRESTON
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1909-05-26
Citations: 157 Mich. 66
Docket Number: Docket No. 2
Parties: LASLEY v. PRESTON.
Judges: Blair, C. J., and Ostrander, McAlvay, and Brooke, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 157
Pages: 66–67

Head Matter:
LASLEY v. PRESTON.
Appeal and Error — Conclusiveness op Findings op Fact —
Practice in Supreme Court.
Findings of fact and law made by the trial court without the aid of a jury must be held to be conclusive when the printed record does not purport to contain all the evidence, and the assignments of error are general.
Error to Mackinac; Shepherd, J.
Submitted April 6, 1909.
(Docket No. 2.)
Decided May 26, 1909.
Assumpsit by S. Henry Lasley against William P. Preston for the use and occupation of certain land. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error.
Affirmed.
James J. Brown, for appellant.
William Carpenter, for appellee.

Opinion:
Moore, J.
This action is brought to recover for the use and occupation of certain real estate. The case 'was heard by the trial judge, who made certain findings of fact and conclusions of law.. The case is brought here by writ of error.
The record does not purport to contain the evidence taken in the court below. We cannot say, from it, that there was not an abundance of evidence upon which to base the findings of fact. These must be deemed to be conclusive. Bateman v. Blaisdell, 83 Mich. 357 (47 N. W. 223); First Nat. Bank of Paw Paw v. Walker, 115 Mich. 434 (73 N. W. 378); Darling Milling Co. v. Chapman, 131 Mich. 684 (92 N. W. 352); Hoffman v. Silverthorn, 137 Mich. 60 (100 N. W. 183).
The assignments of error are general in form, and attack the conclusions of the court as expressed in the judgment. We cannot say, from the case as presented, that these conclusions were not correct. Hoffman v. Buschman, 95 Mich. 538 (55 N. W. 458); People v. Slayton, 123 Mich. 397 (82 N. W. 205, 81 Am. St. Rep. 211); Rumney v. Cattle Co., 129 Mich. 644 (89 N. W. 573).
Judgment is affirmed.
Blair, C. J., and Ostrander, McAlvay, and Brooke, JJ., concurred.