Hotchkiss v. Weinmann-Matthews Co.
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mahder v. Wax (Mich. 1916)
- Foster v. Krause (Mich. 1915)
- Reynick v. Aldington & Curtis Manufacturing Co. (Mich. 1914)
- Tishhouse v. Schoenberg (Mich. 1926)
- Sullivan v. Detroit United Railway (Mich. 1921)
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
In this case there are six assignments of error. The brief for appellant does not point out, nor does an examination of the record disclose, any exceptions upon which said assignments are based.
A motion for a new trial was made and denied. No exception was taken, but error is assigned upon such denial. 3 Comp. Laws, § 10504 (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 12965), permits a review of the action of the lower court in refusing a new trial when an exception is taken, but not otherwise. Conger v. Hall, 158 Mich. 447-449 (122 N. W. 1073).
The judgment is affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.