Murphy v. Wayne Circuit Judge
| Decision Date | 08 February 1930 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 305. |
| Citation | 249 Mich. 438,229 N.W. 1 |
| Parties | MURPHY v. WAYNE CIRCUIT JUDGE. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Petition by William Henry Murphy for mandamus to compel Hon. Guy A. Miller, Wayne Circuit Judge, to set aside an order that the case between petitioner and William J. Kuhartz, doing business as the William J. Kuhartz Cartage Company, and others, could be tried without jury, and to permit a demand for a jury trial to be filed. Writ granted.
Argued before WIEST C. J., and FEAD, BUTZEL, CLARK, McDONALD, POTTER, NORTH, and SHARPE, JJ.Walter M. Nelson, of Detroit (Frederick J. Ward and Robert E. Plunkett, both of Detroit, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Stevenson, Butzel, Eaman & Long, of Detroit (Leo W. Kuhn, of Detroit, of counsel), for respondent.
On April 2, 1926, plaintiff brought an action against William J. Kuhartz, doing business as William J. Kuhartz Cartage Company, and Oscar Metz to recover damages claimed to have been sustained by being struck by a truck owned by the company and driven by Metz. Discontinuance as to Metz was later had. Trial was had on February 15, 1927, resulting in a directed verdict for defendant. On review in this court, the judgment entered thereon was reversed and a new trial ordered. Murphy v. Kuhartz, 244 Mich. 54, 221 N. W. 143. An amended declaration was filed by plaintiff, in which Weil & Co. and Metz were also made defendants. Trial was again begun on April 29, 1929, resulting in a mistrial. The cause came on for trial again on June 13th before the defendant. Plaintiff's attorney had omitted to file a demand for a jury, as required by Circuit Court Rule No. 39. The court called attention to this omission, and announced that the cause would proceed to trial before him without a jury. Counsel for plaintiff then promptly moved for leave to file such demand. The court entered an order denying such leave, and called attention to ‘the determination of the judges of the Wayne circuit court that that rule be enforced,’ and stated that he felt bound thereby. Plaintiff thereupon petitioned this court for mandamus to compel the defendant to set aside said order and permit such demand to be filed. An order to show cause was granted, and the defendant's return is before us. The regularity of the proceeding is not questioned. It is the desire of all parties that a determination of the question be here had.
The record discloses that it has been the practice in the Wayne circuit court to impanel a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zoski v. Gaines
...uniformly enforced; it was the custom in tort cases to order a jury, even though not demanded, and calls attention to Murphy v. Circuit Judge, 249 Mich. 438, 229 N. W. 1. Plaintiff's counsel have, however, overlooked our subsequent determination in Griffin v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 261 Mich......
-
Solosth v. Pere Marquette Ry. Co.
...vested in the court had been exercised so consistently as to become almost a rule of practice in that circuit. See Murphy v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 249 Mich. 438, 229 N. W. 1. In the statement of facts, as stipulated by the attorneys, it is said: ‘At the time of the decision of said motion, s......
-
City of Detroit v. Judge of Recorder's Court, Motion No. 472.
...The court ought not to depart from the practice suddenly and without notice and to the injury of the litigants. Murphy v. Circuit Judge, 249 Mich. 438, 229 N. W. 1, 15 C. J. p. 908. New trial was within the discretion of the judge. The discretion does not appear to have been abused. No othe......