ABSENCE OF COUNSEL See CRIMINAL LAW (27).
ACCEPTANCE-See CONTRACTS (2).
ACCIDENTAL DEATH-See MASTER AND SERVANT (4, 16-18, 23, 37, 38, 45).
ACCIDENTAL INJURY-See MASTER AND SERVANT (8, 12, 14); NEGLIGENCE (6).
ACCOMPLICE, LETTER FROM-See CRIMINAL LAW (28).
ACCOUNTING-See EQUITY (1).
ACQUISITION OF STOCK-See CORPORATIONS (8).
ACTION-See PARTNERSHIP (2).
ACTION AGAINST SHERIFF-See SHERIFFS.
ACTIVE NEGLIGENCE-See NEGLIGENCE (3, 10). ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW-See EQUITY (1, 3). ADMISSIBILITY-See CRIMINAL LAW (6, 18). ADMISSIONS-See CRIMINAL LAW (18, 19, 34).
1. It is settled law in Michigan that a tenant or licensee cannot convert his occupancy under license into an ad- verse holding without actual notice to the holder of the legal title. Standard v. Jewell, 62.
2. Where the occupation of the lands by plaintiffs or any one in their behalf was not continuous, the court below properly held that title by adverse possession was not established. Id.
3. Proof to sustain a claim of title by adverse possession must be clear and cogent. Keyzer v. Peterson, 238.
4. Where grantors owned property adjoining that conveyed, their possession of a strip of land in dispute along the boundary will be presumed to be in subordination to their own conveyance, in the absence of any change of circum- stances or conditions which can be held to have given notice to the grantee or successors in title that any ad- verse claim to the land called for in their deed was being made. Id.
ADVERSE POSSESSION-Continued.
5. Where the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses varied as to the different monuments upon which they relied to estab- lish their line, there was no such cogent and convincing proof of the occupancy of any particular strip of land as to warrant the court in saying that the title was acquired by adverse possession. Id.
AFFIDAVITS-See GARNISHMENT; JUSTICES' COUrts.
AGE OF PROSECUTING WITNESS-See CRIMINAL LAW (1). AGENCY-See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
AGREEMENT TO PROBATE-See WILLS (5, 6).
AID TO JURY-See DRAINS (3).
ALIMONY-See APPEAL AND ERROR (12); DIVORCE (2, 4).
AMBIGUITY-See CONTRACTS (3).
AMENDED PLEADINGS-See FRAUD (8).
AMENDMENT-See APPEAL AND ERROR (14); MASTER AND SER- VANT (29).
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. ANIMALS-See EXEMPTIONS (2).
ANSWER INCONSISTENT WITH ORDER See MASTER AND SERVANT (25).
"APPARENT AUTHORITY"-See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
1. Where, in a supplemental brief of 24 pages, 22 pages are devoted to a discussion of counsel's personal grievances against the judge, containing much that is impertinent and scandalous, said pages will be expunged from the records of this court. In re Broffee's Estate, 107.
2. Under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12587, in a case tried without a jury, the Supreme Court may review only the question of whether the findings of fact of the trial judge are against the clear weight of the evidence. Dows v. Schuh, 133.
3. Evidence held, to support the finding of the trial judge. Id.
4. Where evidence has been taken a case must be settled and signed by the trial judge (3 Comp. Laws 1915, §§ 12636, 13757, Circuit Court Rule No. 66), but where no testimony has been taken, as in the instant case, the case is heard on the record, which is authenticated by the clerk (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 13759). Thompson v. Hurson, 139.
APPEAL AND ERROR-Continued.
5. Where appellant has complied with Supreme Court Rule No. 35, properly presenting the only question raised, ap- pellee's motion to strike the printed record from the files, because not sufficiently full, but without pointing out what paper or proceeding necessary to the determination of the question involved is absent therefrom, the motion will be denied, and the case disposed of upon its merits. Id.
6. In a chancery appeal the Supreme Court hears the case de novo, and the decree entered is the final adjudication of the rights of the parties; therefore the circuit court, upon application of a party, without leave of the Supreme Court, may not modify a decree which has been affirmed by the latter court. Id.
7. A decree of the Supreme Court affirming a decree of the circuit court reserving further consideration of the case as to an accounting and sale of property, held, while authorizing the circuit court to proceed therein, not to empower it to again consider the questions finally deter- mined by the decree of the Supreme Court. Id. 140.
8. Where the Supreme Court filed an opinion reversing the decree of the court below, and, pending the settlement of the decree, denied a petition for an order to remand the record for the purpose of further testimony, or leave to file a bill of review, and sent the case down to the circuit court, in chancery, for the purpose of an accounting, "without prejudice to the rights of the parties hereto to have determined any claims they may have, other than the existence of the general copartnership as alleged in the bill of complaint," the action of the court below, in allowing an amendment, taking further testimony as to a joint adventure and entering a decree, which, aside from the preamble and recitals, is, word for word, the same decree as the one reversed, is unjustifiable. Fletcher v. Fletcher, 153.
9. In determining whether the court erred in entering judg- ment for defendant non obstante veredicto, the testimony must be taken in the light most favorable to the plain- tiff's case. Schilawske v. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 214.
10. Where, in an action for personal injuries, a verdict was returned for plaintiff, and upon examination of the evi- dence by the appellate court it cannot be said that there was no miscarriage of justice by reason of erroneous charge of the court and intemperate argument of counsel, the judgment will be reversed. Fitzgerald v Detroit United Railway, 274.
11. An objection that the mother was incompetent, under the statute (3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12555), to testify as to an admission made by the father during the marriage that he was indebted to the son for services, raised for the
APPEAL AND ERROR-Continued.
first time on appeal, will not be considered. Fishell, 309.
12. Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order for temporary alimony will be granted since said order is not final and therefore not appealable. Prost v. Prost, 313.
13. Where the pleadings in a suit for specific performance do not raise the question of the return of the down payment, it will be unnecessary for the appellate court to consider it, on appeal from a decree dismissing the bill. Oakman v. Esper, 316.
14. Where the wife's bill for divorce was amended at the hearing to ask for annulment of marriage claimed by de- fendant to have taken place after he had procured a decree of divorce from her while she was out of the State, an objection that the court, on the amended pleadings, could not grant a divorce and could not dispose of prop- erty matters is technical, and will be disregarded by this court, in view of the fact that the parties had a full hearing upon the merits, and this court has power to permit amendment of pleadings to conform with the tes- timony. Vermoortel v. Vermoortel, 330.
15. Upon a motion to direct a verdict, the evidence and legiti- mate inferences from the established facts most favorable to the other party must be accepted. Burghardt v. Detroit United Railway, 545.
16. A supplemental bill filed by plaintiff in the court below, after the case was remitted to be there enforced under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 13761, by which it is sought to in- crease the amount found by this court to be due plaintiff by adding by way of penalty the amount of costs which plaintiff has since said decree was entered been required to pay, held, to be an attempt to change the decree. White v. Wadhams, 608.
17. In a chancery appeal the Supreme Court hears the case de novo, and the decree entered is a finality; therefore the trial court may not, where the case is remitted to be there enforced, without first obtaining leave of this court, reopen the case and change or modify the decree of this court. Id.
18. Where plaintiff is seeking by this supplemental bill to recover costs incurred in this court on the former appeal, he cannot be said to be precluded by laches although some of the facts alleged came to his knowledge on the hearing in the court below. Id.
19. Held, that this supplemental bill seeks something more than statutory contempt proceedings, which might have been instituted under 3 Comp. Laws 1915, § 12270. Id. 20. On condition that plaintiff pay the taxed costs of this appeal within 30 days, an order will be entered in this
APPEAL AND ERROR-Continued.
court granting nunc pro tunc leave to file this bill, when order appealed from will be affirmed. Id.
21. Where defendants did not appeal from the decree of the court below, the propriety of permitting plaintiff to elect to accept his damages in gross is not open for considera- tion on appeal. Krieg v. Kaufman, 622.
See DRAINS (4); MASTER AND SERVANT (42); PARTIES; TRIAL (7); WILLS (1).
APPEAL FROM PROBATE COURT-See COURTS (1).
APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY-See JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (3, 4).
APPROPRIATE RELIEF-See FRAUD (8).
APPROVAL-See CONTRACTS (4, 5).
APPROVAL OF APPEAL BOND-See COURTS (3).
ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL-See Appeal and ERROR (10); TRIAL (1, 2, 5, 6, 8).
ARSON-See CRIMINAL LAW (10, 31).
ASSAULT BY FELLOW-SERVANT-See MASTER AND SERVANT (33-36).
ASSIGNMENTS-See CORPORATIONS (4).
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR-See CRIMINAL LAW (22).
ATTACHMENT OF NOTICE OF RULE TO PLEAD TO DEC- LARATION-See PROCESS.
Where a contract of employment between a law firm and their client was terminated by the client's brother, acting as her attorney, at the conclusion of the trial in the cir- cuit court, and a new contract entered into for carrying the case to the Supreme Court, contradictory testimony as to the terms of the new contract, held, to present a question of fact for the jury. Boyle v. Waters, 515. See EVIDENCE (2); TRIAL (3).
AUCTION SALE-See DRAINS (6, 7).
AUTHENTICATION-See APPEAL AND ERROR (4).
AUTOMOBILES-See RAILROADS (2); STREET RAILWAYS (2, 4).
AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE-See MASTER AND SERVANT (21). AWARD-See MASTER AND SERVANT (3, 18).
« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια » |