Court Opinion

ID: 9690238
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:58:54.620498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:54.430991
License: Public Domain

Boyles, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiff cross-appeals solely on the ground'that the court erred in granting a new trial unless plaintiff remitted $125 from the jury verdict which was in the sum of $858.40. The trial court concluded that the verdict was “somewhat excessive” as a matter of fact, but not as to admissibility of evidence or other question of - law. Plaintiff thereupon consented to the remittitur but without prejudice to reinstating the full judgment on appeal. Under proper practice the plaintiff would thereby be estopped from prosecuting his cross appeal, having consented to the remittitur. McDaniel v. Hancock, 328 Mich 78, 88. However, in addition to plaintiff’s reserving the right to claim the full amount, *372on appeal, counsel have filed a stipulation in this Court stating that the evidence supports the jury’s verdict for $858.40 and agreeing that the court erred as to the evidence, in directing the remittitur.
Under the above circumstances, the McDaniel Case, supra, is not authority to prevent the entry of judgment on the verdict for the full amount, and the case should be remanded for that purpose.
Butzel, J., concurred with Boyles, J.