70 N.W. 444 (Mich. 1897), Canfield v. City of Jackson

Citation:70 N.W. 444, 112 Mich. 120
Opinion Judge:MOORE, J.
Party Name:CANFIELD v. CITY OF JACKSON.
Attorney:[112 Mich. 121] J. H. Parkinson, for appellant. Blair, Wilson & Blair, for appellee.
Case Date:March 17, 1897
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 444

70 N.W. 444 (Mich. 1897)

112 Mich. 120

CANFIELD

v.

CITY OF JACKSON.

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 17, 1897

Error to circuit court, Jackson county; Erastus Peck, Judge.

Action by Helen F. Canfield against the city of Jackson to recover for injuries caused by a defective sidewalk. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

[112 Mich. 121] J. H. Parkinson, for appellant.

Blair, Wilson & Blair, for appellee.

MOORE, J.

The plaintiff recovered a judgment for injuries received because of a fall upon a defective sidewalk. The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the admission of testimony bearing upon the question of the extent of the injuries received by the plaintiff. It was alleged in the declaration that the plaintiff "stepped into one of said holes, and was thereby thrown and fell to and upon the side sidewalk and the ground there, and thereby the spine of said plaintiff was severely and permanently injured, and she was otherwise severely hurt, bruised, and wounded, and she became and was sick, sore, and disabled, and so remained," etc. We think the declaration was sufficiently broad to warrant the introduction of all the testimony which was received. The plaintiff was allowed to show the condition of the walk at and in the vicinity where the accident occurred at the time of and prior to the accident. It is claimed this was error. The decisions of this court justified the admission of the testimony. Will v. Village of Mendon (Mich.) 66 N.W. 58; Moore v. City of Kalamazoo, Id. 1089.

The refusal of the trial judge to give some of the defendant's requests to charge is assigned as error. In his general charge the court gave correctly the principles of law in relation to which he was requested to charge, and we have repeatedly held that it was not error to decline to give a particular request, if the general charge correctly [112 Mich. 122] stated the law in relation to the subject-matter of the request.

This suit was commenced August 1, 1894. It was tried in November, 1895. The charter of Jackson contained a provision reading: "The council shall audit and allow all legitimate claims against the city; and when required by the common council every account shall be accompanied with an affidavit of the person rendering it, to the effect that he verily believes that the services or property therein charged have been...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP