Court Opinion

ID: 9734040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:23:35.603397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:45.252321
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, J.
A jury returned verdict for plaintiffs. The court entered judgment non obstante veredicto for defendant. We granted plaintiffs leave to appeal in the nature of mandamus. The case has come up on a settled record without bill of exceptions or settled case, defendant, as appellee, thus having been left with the alternative of assuming the burden of procuring an expensive transcript of an extended trial and, as cross appellant, preparing and noticing a proposed bill of exceptions in order to urge here the other grounds it advanced below in support of its motions for new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto, or waiving consideration thereof here and running the risk of reversal and entry of judgment on the verdict without determination of its other asserted grounds. Peters v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 282 Mich 426. The judgment non obstante veredicto was a final judgment which disposed of the case, and for review of which writ of error or, under present court rules which have left the character of the remedy of mandamus unchanged (Quail v. Cole, 260 Mich 642), general appeal would lie and afford the adequate and proper remedy. We are now satisfied, therefore, that leave to appeal in the nature of mandamus was improvi*209dently granted. Cattermole v. Ionia Circuit Judge, 136 Mich. 274; Skutt v. Kent Circuit Judge, 136 Mich 477; City of Flint v. Genesee Circuit Judge, 146 Mich 439; Hartz v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 164 Mich 35; Kingsley v. Kent Circuit Judge, 171 Mich 305; Trumbull Motor Car Co. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 189 Mich 554; Lapham v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 243 Mich 154.
Onr granting of leave having occasioned the expense of this appeal and anticipating the possibility of application for leave to take a delayed general appeal on the same limited assignment of errors here presented if they be not now determined, we deem it appropriate to observe that we do not consider them well taken. Plaintiffs’ declaration planted their right to recover on a series of transactions, all of which occurred under or in connection with an alleged agreement between plaintiff husband and defendant, by which the former agreed to buy and sell cattle for defendant but to take title in his own name for the purpose of evading the statutes, Michigan public service commission rules and taxes applicable to his transportation thereof if the truth of defendant’s ownership were disclosed; also set up in the declaration as in furtherance of such scheme and as partial basis of plaintiffs’ claimed right to recover, was a chattel mortgage allegedly given by plaintiffs to defendant. The trial court held that an illegal contract, against public policy, had been pleaded and that under such circumstances courts will not enforce it or grant relief thereunder but leave the parties where they have placed themselves. In this the court was correct. Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich 632 (6 LRA 457); Cashin v. Pliter, 168 Mich 386 (Ann Cas 1913C, 697); Mulliken v. Naph-Sol Refining Co., 302 Mich 410; Day v. Chamberlain, 223 Mich 278; Dettloff v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 195 Mich 117 (14 NCCA 901); Turner v. Schmidt Brewing Co., *210278 Mich 464. This is not, as plaintiffs urge, a situation, as in Eastern Distributing Corp. v. Lightstone, 257 Mich 184, in which we denied recovery under a contract consisting of several promises based on several considerations because some were illegal, but allowed recovery under the common counts on those which were legal because they were severable from the rest. Here all the transactions are alleged as a part and in pursuance of the illegal purpose and contract and all are tainted with the illegality. When the trial court pointed this out plaintiffs sought to amend their declaration to eliminate the allegations disclosing the illegality of the contract. While the meager record does not contain the proposed amended declaration, it is evident that the evidence required to support the original declaration and that necessary to prove the amended one would not be the same. Thus, the amendment represented a change in ■ plaintiffs’ theory and. amounted to introducing a' new cause of action Stowe v. May, 247 Mich 566. The matter of permitting amendments rests entirely in the sound discretion of the trial court and here it did not abuse it in refusing the amendment. Ogden v. Moore, 95 Mich 290; Kerr v. City of Detroit, 255 Mich 446, and cases therein cited. Defendant’s motion for judgment non. obstante veredicto was timely made.
Appeal dismissed. Costs to defendant.
Butzel, Sharpe, Reid, and Kelly, JJ., concurred, with Dethmebs, J.
Carr, C. J., concurred in affirmance on the merits.