Mahiat v. Codde

• Decision Date: 26 September 1895
• Citation: 106 Mich. 387,64 N.W. 194
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: MAHIAT v. CODDE.

64 N.W. 194

106 Mich. 387

MAHIAT v. CODDE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

September 26, 1895

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Robert E. Frazer, Judge.

Action by Mary Mahiat against August Codde for breach of promise of marriage. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

Oscar M. Springer, for appellant.

William Stacey, for appellee.

GRANT J.

Plaintiff recovered verdict and judgment for $5,000 for breach of promise of marriage. The defendant's wife died June 19th and on August following he commenced his attentions to plaintiff. September 12th he proposed marriage to her. He admits the proposal. She testified that she promised to consider the proposal; that two days after he came for an answer, and she accepted. The acceptance is denied by him. The jury found that the marriage contract was consummated and the proofs are ample to sustain their finding. His letter to her dated October 11th is conclusive on this point. Referring to the conduct of his daughter to the plaintiff shortly before, evidently owing to her opposition to the marriage, he wrote: "If the whole world turned against our union, there would be no change;" and signed himself "Your intended." The question of the contract was therefore, properly left to the jury, and their finding is conclusive.

1. Two questions were asked by plaintiff's counsel, to which counsel for defendant, according to the record, simply said "Objected to," giving no reasons for his objections. The reasons now urged against their admissibility are not such as would at once occur to the court. Such a statement is not a sufficient basis for an exception, and will not be considered upon appeal. Counsel must state the reasons for their objections, and will be limited, in this court, to the reasons stated. Abbott v. Chaffee, 83 Mich. 256, 47 N.W. 216; Merkle v. Bennington Tp., 68 Mich. 133, 35 N.W. 846, and authorities there cited.

2. Counsel for defendant made a motion for a new trial, alleging 19 reasons therefor. This motion was overruled, and the defendant excepted. The only error assigned upon this motion is that the court erred in denying it, for the reasons therein set forth. It is unnecessary to determine the question, urged by plaintiff's counsel, whether the exception and assignment are sufficiently definite. Many of these reasons refer to points not raised upon the trial, and to which the attention of the court was not called. These cannot be considered upon review by this court. Waterman v. Waterman, 34 Mich. 490; Lane v. Boom Co., 62 Mich. 63, 28 N.W. 786; Wicks v. Ross, 37 Mich. 464; Mining Co. v. Harris, 24 Mich. 115. The instructions of the court covered all the essential features of the case, and were, therefore, sufficient. If counsel desired more explicit instructions, they should have presented their requests to the court. Brown v. Furniture Co., 65 Mich. 360, 32 N.W. 441.

It was also insisted, upon the motion for a new trial, that the verdict was so excessive that the court should interpose and grant a new trial. The learned circuit judge passed upon this question, and decided otherwise. It is now urged, with great persistency, that this court should reverse the verdict for that reason, and counsel make a...