Taylor v. Lowe

• Decision Date: 03 February 1964
• Docket Number: Nos. 63,64,s. 63
• Citation: 126 N.W.2d 104,372 Mich. 282
• Parties: Alean TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Townsend G. LOWE, Defendant and Appellee. Isaac TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Townsend G. LOWE, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 104

126 N.W.2d 104

372 Mich. 282

Alean TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.Townsend G. LOWE, Defendant and Appellee.

Isaac TAYLOR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.Townsend G. LOWE, Defendant and Appellee.

Nos. 63, 64.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 3, 1964.

Louis L. Welner, Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Moll, Desenberg, Purdy, Glover & Bayer, Detroit, for defendant and appellee.

Before KAVANAGH, C. J., and DETHMERS, KELLY, BLACK, SOURIS, SMITH and O'HARA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A sufficiently descriptive background of these consolidated suits for damages will be found in Taylor v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 368 Mich. 506, 118 N.W.2d 421.

The 4 questions mentioned in our previous decision have been duly briefed and argued.They are presented by appellants this way:

'1.Should corroborating real evidence as well as direct testimony be permitted on redirect examination to dispel unfavorable inferences brought out by the trial judge on direct examination and discussed on cross-examination?

'2.Was it prejudicial error for the trial judge to make disparaging remarks in ruling upon the proposed introduction of certain evidence?

'3.Was it prejudicial error for the trial judge to charge the jury before plaintiffs could proceed with their rebuttal closing argument?

'4.Was it prejudicial error for the appellee to argue that his right to continue to practice medicine was related to the instant trial for money damages?'

Indicating no acceptance of the factual premises set forth in questions 1 and 2, we find upon consideration of the appendix and briefs that no error in rejection of proffered testimony occurred during the trial and that the remaining questions posed above were not raised and saved for review.

These are law cases.The general rule is that of 'no objection-no ruling-no error presented.'See application of such rule in Gubas v. Bucsko, 219 Mich. 553, 556, 189 N.W. 13andHerbert v. Durgis, 276 Mich. 158, 166, 267 N.W. 809, and recent reiteration thereof in Riste v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 368 Mich. 32, 36, 117 N.W.2d 161.It must be applied to such remaining questions despite plea of counsel that the consequences of procedural omissions should not be visited upon client-litigants.

The trouble with such not unworthy plea is that an appellate court, bound as it is to follow its own rules lest litigation becomes endless, never knows when omissions of timely objection and due motion are tactical and when they are slothful.Thus does ...