« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
ABSENCE OF COUNSEL-See CRIMINAL LAW (27).
ACCEPTANCE-See CONTRACTS (2).
ACCIDENTAL DEATHSee MASTER AND SERVANT (4, 16-18, 23,
37, 38, 45).
ACCIDENTAL INJURY-See MASTER AND SERVANT (8, 12, 14);
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 18 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
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
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-
AMENDMENTS TO CONSTITUTION-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
ANIMALS–See EXEMPTIONS (2).
ANSWER INCONSISTENT WITH ORDER See MASTER AND
"APPARENT AUTHORITY"-See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
APPEAL AND ERROR.
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,
3. Evidence held, to support the finding of the trial judge.
4. Where evidence has been taken a case must be settled
and signed by the trial judge (3 Comp. Laws 1915, 88
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,
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.
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.
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, 8 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 v.
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
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 ERROB—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
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
ASSIGNMENTS–See CORPORATIONS (4).
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR-See CRIMINAL LAW (22).
ATTACHMENT OF NOTICE OF RULE TO PLEAD TO DEC-
ATTORNEY AND CLIENT.
Where a contract of employment between a law firm and