Tait v. Ross, Docket No. 9864
| Decision Date | 24 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 9864,1 |
| Citation | 194 N.W.2d 554,37 Mich.App. 205 |
| Parties | William R. TAIT, Mason Contractor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herman ROSS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Robert A. Fineman, Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
William J. DeBiasi, DeBiasi & Carrier, Taylor, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before LESINSKI, C.J., and HOLBROOK and VanVALKENBURG, * JJ.
Defendant Herman Ross appeals as of right from a judgment of $8,747 plus costs and interest rendered in favor of plaintiff by a judge sitting as trier of fact.
This case centers around a dispute between plaintiff and defendant over the terms of an oral modification of a written contract for masonry work on an apartment project in the City of Southgate. Plaintiff contends the contract was for the number of bricks actually delivered to the job site. Defendant contends that the contract was for the number of bricks actually laid. The trial judge, after hearing five days of testimony, found for the plaintiff.
Defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of proof by failing to prove how many bricks were actually laid. He further states that the trial judge's decision was against the weight of the evidence because 'every bit of evidence in this case tends to support appellant's position that appellee installed less bricks than he billed for.'
We must assume that the trial court, in finding for plaintiff, felt that plaintiff's version of the contract was correct. Since plaintiff's interpretation of the contract was for 'bricks delivered,' it was unnecessary for him to prove that all the bricks delivered were installed. In Liscomb v. Twinwood, Inc., 24 Mich.App. 353, 180 N.W.2d 280 (1970), we stated that findings of fact by the trial court in a contract action will be reversed only when crucial proof has been overlooked or ignored. No proof has been overlooked in this case. There is ample evidence to support the trial judge in his determination of the contract. This Court will not substitute its judgment on factual questions in a nonjury case for that of the trial court unless the facts clearly indicate an opposite result should be reached. Miller v. State Highway Department, 30 Mich.App. 64, 186 N.W.2d 67 (1971).
Defendant also contends that the trial court denied him a fair and impartial trial by its repeated demonstration of hostility to defendant and his witnesses, lawyer and cause, and its disparagement of same, and by its constant argumentative and hostile interruptions in examination of witnesses. Examination of the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bofysil v. State
...a nonjury case for that of the trial court unless it is clearly indicated that an opposite result should be reached. Tait v. Ross, 37 Mich.App. 205, 194 N.W.2d 554 (1971). Findings of fact in a nonjury action will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Thompson v. Essex Wire Co.......
-
Meyering v. Russell
...particularly in nonjury cases, is not error. People v. Wilder, 383 Mich. 122, 124, 174 N.W.2d 562 (1970); Tait v. Ross, 37 Mich.App. 205, 207, 194 N.W.2d 554 (1971), lv. to app. den., 386 Mich. 787 (1972), cert. den., 407 U.S. 921, 92 S.Ct. 2462, 32 L.Ed.2d 806 Purchasers Pendente Lite On t......
-
Komendera v. American Bar and Cabinet Mfrs., Docket No. 11184
...appellate court is limited, and we are not free to disregard clear precedent of this State's highest court. Tait v. Ross, 37 Mich.App. 205, 194 N.W.2d 554 (1971). We also note that the approach which plaintiff proposes that we adopt in a successive disability case has detrimental effects on......
-
Barry v. Flint Fire Dept., Docket No. 11571
...of fact unless the evidence clearly indicates that an opposite result should have been reached. GCR 1963, 517.1; Tait v. Ross, 37 Mich.App. 205, 194 N.W.2d 554 (1971); Miller v. Department of State Highways, 30 Mich.App. 64, 186 N.W.2d 87 Surely the next question to decide is whether or not......