Marwick v. Elsey
| Decision Date | 12 October 1881 |
| Citation | 47 Mich. 10,8 N.W. 587 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | MARWICK v. ELSEY. |
Case stricken from the docket for failure to seasonably furnish opposing counsel with printed record.
Motion to strike the case from docket April 12.
A case will be stricken from the docket of the supreme court where plaintiff in error has failed to furnish opposing counsel with a printed record until late in the day preceding that set for the hearing.
Edwin F. Conely, for the motion.
Where the plaintiff in error had noticed the case for hearing but neglected to furnish opposing counsel with a printed record until late in the day immediately preceding that set for hearing, the case was, on the latter's motion, stricken from the docket with full costs as for a hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Hockenberry
...but they furnished no evidence that the conspiracy existed (see Solomon v. Kirkwood, 55 Mich. 256, 21 N.W. 336; Mawich v. Elsey, 47 Mich. 10, 8 N.W. 587, 10 57), and therefore they cannot be considered as furnishing any evidence of plaintiff's connivance. Other items of testimony less signi......
-
Pratt v. Berry
...of law. The trial judge is given large discretion in regard to the style and general manner of the charge in a case. Mawich v. Elsey (1881), 47 Mich. 10, 8 N.W. 587. It is not error for a trial judge to use an example when he is instructing the jury, unless the example serves to mislead the......
-
Roux v. Blodgett & Davis Lumber Co.
...evidence was cured. This principle was again approved in Stone v. Sleigh Co., 70 Wis. 585, 36 N.W. 248. See, also, Mawich v. Elsey, 47 Mich. 10, 8 N.W. 587, and N.W. 57; Roberts v. Pepple, 55 Mich. 367, 21 N.W. 319. It is claimed that the court was in error in instructing the jury in that p......