Michigan Supreme Court, 1902

Walker v. Mack

Michigan Supreme Court · Decided March 4, 1902 · Grant, Hooker, Long, Montgomery, Moore

129 Mich. 527; 89 N.W. 338; 1902 Mich. LEXIS 495

Cases that cite this one

5 later published cases cite this decision.

Smith v. Michigan Realty & Construction Co. (Mich. 1913)
Board of Education v. Van Derveen (Mich. 1912)
In re Spinner's Estate (Mich. 1929)
Spinner v. Sullivan (Mich. 1929)
Rose v. Waddell (Mich. 1925)

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

Grant, J.

{after stating the facts). The assignments of error number 42, and 24 points are made in the brief of appellant. Most of these points contain no argument, but are simply assertions that the court erred. Two of these points are thus stated:

“The defendant took an exception to the introduction of the contract, plans, and specifications, which was granted by the court.”

“The. court erred in admitting the specifications as a part of the said contract, to which exception was taken.”

Assignments of error thus stated, but not argued, will not be considered by the court. It is the’ duty of counsel to at least state the reasons upon which they rely to support their allegations of error.

*530The court refused to permit the defendant to show that there was a parol agreement to pay $200. No fraud was shown to have been practiced upon the defendant in executing the contract. Its terms are not ambiguous. It was therefore binding upon her, and parol evidence was not admissible to vary its terms. The court’s ruling was correct upon this point, and the judgment is affirmed.

Hooker, C. J., Moore and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Long, J., did not sit.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.