Haines v. Saviers
Cases that cite this one
17 later published cases cite this decision.
- Walker v. Village of Brooklyn (Mich. 1915)
- Moore v. Royal Oak Lumber & Supply Co. (Mich. 1912)
- Markey v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance (Mich. 1911)
- White v. Schaberg (Mich. 1902)
- David v. Paul (Mich. 1929)
- Edward W. Alexander Co. v. Griggs (Mich. 1927)
- Michigan Central Railroad v. Morgan (Mich. 1924)
- Robbins v. Simons Sales Co. (Mich. 1922)
- Messer v. Dornbos (Mich. 1920)
- Rice v. City of Muskegon (Mich. 1908)
- Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Grand Rapids Bridge Co. (Mich. 1905)
- McDonell v. Union Trust Co. (Mich. 1905)
- Simmons Hardware Co. v. Rose (Mich. 1905)
- Old Second National Bank v. Williams (Mich. 1897)
- Hubbard v. Garner (Mich. 1897)
- Barnum v. Andrews (Mich. 1895)
- Township of Cumming v. Schick (Mich. 1892)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is stated in the commencement of the record in this case that “the following testimony was introduced, which is all that was offered by the parties.” The case appears to have been tried before the court without a jury.
Two errors are assigned: (1) That the court erred in admitting evidence, and (2) that he erred in rendering judgment for the plaintiff.
1. No exception was taken to the ruling of the court upon the evidence. Therefore such ruling cannot be reviewed in this Court.
2. No written demand for a written finding of facts and law was filed, nor did the judge make and file any such written finding. He who desires to review in this Court a judgment, wherein a trial was had before the court without a jury, and to question the conclusions reached by such court upon the facts and the law, must have a written finding, both of facts and law, and must take his exceptions thereto. Circuit Court Rules, 87-90; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87; Plumer v. Abbey, 39 Id. 167; Green v. Gill, 47 Id. 86; Irwin v. Schlief, 48 Id. 237; Wertin v. Crocker, 47 Id. 642; Cragin v. Gardner, 64 Id. 399; Keystone Lumber & Salt Mang. Co. v. Jenkinson, 69 Id. 220.
Hnder the present record, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.