Rawson v. McElvain
| Decision Date | 11 October 1882 |
| Citation | 49 Mich. 194,13 N.W. 513 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | RAWSON v. MCELVAIN. |
A justice's return that "the foregoing contains about all the testimony" will not justify a review of the evidence by the supreme court to see whether it sustained the judgment.
A justice's return to a writ of certiorari must be taken as conclusive in matters of evidence even as against the affidavit for the writ.
Where a purchaser of goods has left them with the vendor and the latter recovers judgment for their value, the force of the verdict is not destroyed by the additional direction that plaintiff deliver them to defendant. This merely states the legal consequence of the judgment and may be repeated as surplusage.
Error to Kalamazoo.
Dallas Bondeman, for plaintiff.
Howard & Roos, for defendant and appellant.
This cause was tried in justice court before a jury, verdict and judgment rendered thereon in favor of the plaintiff. The cause was removed to the circuit by certiorari where the judgment of the justice was affirmed. The justice in his return certifies that he is "not able to return all the testimony in the case, as the case was tried by a jury, but that the foregoing is about all the testimony given on the said trial." It is very evident from this return that the evidence cannot be examined for the purpose of determining whether the verdict and judgment could be thereby supported. The weight of the testimony could not in any event be here considered, and but slight omissions in the return might very materially affect and vary the tendency. And we must accept the return upon this matter, even as against the affidavit for the allowance of the writ, as conclusive.
The only other question necessary to be noticed relates to the verdict of the jury. The action was brought to recover the value of a bonnet ordered by the wife of the defendant from the plaintiff. The evidence tended to show an acceptance of the bonnet by Mrs. McElvain, and that it was permitted to remain in the possession of the plaintiff for the value "and that the plaintiff deliver to the defendant the bonnet." This was no more than a statement of what would legally follow from the verdict rendered and judgment thereon. The bonnet would belong to and was the property of the defendant or his wife; the law would so award, and the jury by so declaring did not thereby destroy the effect of their finding in favor of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Walbridge v. Valliant
...superior tribunal." Jackson v. People, 10 Mich. 111; Ex parte Madison Turnpike Co. 62 Ala. 93; Camden v. Clock, 65 Ala. 236; Ransom v. McElvaine, 49 Mich. 194; Hyde Nelson, 11 Mich. 357; People v. Board, 72 N.Y. 415; People v. Board, 69 N.Y. 408; People v. Weigant, 14 Hun (N. Y.), 546; More......
-
Malarkey Asphalt Co. v. Wyborney
...from the final judgment. Robertson & Wilson Scale & Supply Co. v. Richman, 212 Mich. 334, 180 N.W. 470 (1920); Rawson v. McElvaine, 9 Mich. 194, 13 N.W. 513 (1882). Even if the defect is not due to the presence of surplusage, the court may still alter the verdict itself so long as the court......
-
Gilbert v. Board of Police & Fire Commissioners of Salt Lake City
...by the superior tribunal. Jackson v. People, 9 Mich. 111; Ex parte Madesire, etc., 62 Ala. 93; Camden v. Block, 65 Ala. 236; Ransom v. McIlvine, 49 Mich. 194; Hyde Nelson, 11 Mich. 357; People v. Police Board, 72 N.Y. 415; Moreland v. Whitford, 54 Wis. 150; Berry v. Lowe, 10 Mich. 9. It is ......
-
Moline, Milburn & Stoddard Company v. Curtis
... ... the merits. ( Corrie v. Corrie , 42 Mich. 509, 4 N.W ... 213; Hyslop v. Finch , 99 Ill. 171; Rawson v ... McElvaine , 49 Mich. 194, 13 N.W. 513; Central P. R ... Co. v. Placer County , 43 Cal. 365; Ex parte ... Nightingale , 11 Pick. 168; ... ...