Detroit Free Press v. Miller
| Decision Date | 04 June 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 77.,77. |
| Citation | 223 Mich. 333,193 N.W. 779 |
| Parties | DETROIT FREE PRESS v. MILLER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; Walter H. North, Judge.
Action by the Detroit Free Press against Frank P. Miller. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.Albert McClatchey and Firmon Lush, both of Detroit, for appellant.
Robert M. Brownson, of Detroit (Stephen V. Riffel, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.
A judgment of restitution of certain premises occupied by defendant, awarded plaintiff, was affirmed by this court in 217 Mich. 118, 185 N. W. 682. After plaintiff had been put in possession it began this suit to recover the damages provided for in section 13251, 3 Comp. Laws 1915. This section reads:
‘The plaintiff obtaining restitution of any premises under the provisions of this chapter, shall be entitled to an action of trespass on the case against the defendant, and may recover double damages from the time of the forcible entry, or forcible detainer, or of the notice to quit, or demand of possession, as the case may be.’
The lease under which defendant had occupied provided for a monthly rental of $161. It contained the following provision:
Plaintiff was permitted to prove that it could have rented the premises during the year for which defendant unlawfully held possession for $3,952.56. The interest on this sum to the date of the judgment was computed at $278.04; its expenses in obtaining possession amounted to $1,071.93. The trial court directed the jury to find for the plaintiff in the sum of these items, $5,308.47. He then added thereto the amount found as rental which the plaintiff might have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sweeney v. Adam Groth Co.
...as that of the Little Sisters of the Poor was improperly admitted. Error, to be reversible, must be prejudicial. Detroit Free Press v. Miller, 223 Mich. 333, 193 N. W. 779. The jury allowed nothing on this item. The error, therefore, if any, is not reversible, and need not be considered. Ap......
-
Anthony v. Cochrane
...other questions along a similar vein. It is a general rule that error, to be reversible, must be prejudicial. See Detroit Free Press v. Miller, 223 Mich. 333, 193 N.W. 779;Sweeney v. Adam Groth Co., 269 Mich. 436, 257 N.W. 855;Zoski v. Gaines, 271 Mich. 1, 260 N.W. 99;Madalinski v. Hill, 27......
-
Donaldson v. Josephson
...lease was a provision for liquidated damages and enforceable as such. Poppers v. Meager, 148 Ill. 192, 35 N.E. 805; Detroit Free Press v. Miller, 223 Mich. 333, 193 N.W. 779; Lewis v. Welch Wholesale Flour & Feed Co., 96 W.Va. 694, 123 S.E. 801, 39 A.L.R. In this case the evidence does not ......
-
Zimmerman v. Goldberg
...Sweeney v. Adam Groth Co., 269 Mich. 436, 257 N.W. 855.’ Zoski v. Gaines, 271 Mich. 1, 260 N.W. 99, 102. See, also, Detroit Free Press v. Miller, 223 Mich. 333, 193 N.W. 779. The judgment entered in the circuit court is affirmed, with costs.FEAD, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL, SHARPE, and TOY, JJ., conc......