case comes within rule in Michigan

1938People v. Burke, 157 Mich. 108 ; People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348 ( 61 Am.

1910People v. Burke, 157 Mich. 113 ( 121 N. W. 282 ); People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348 ( 65 N. W. 203 , 61 Am.

1938People v. Burke, 157 Mich. 108 ; People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348 ( 61 Am.

1910People v. Burke, 157 Mich. 113 ( 121 N. W. 282 ); People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348 ( 65 N. W. 203 , 61 Am.

1924The case comes within the rule laid down in Gugins v. Van Gorder, 10 Mich. 523 .

1891The case comes within the rule laid down in Gugins v. Van Gorder, 10 Mich. 523 . * * * In this case it is complainants, and not defendants, that rely on parol evidence to show a title.

1975The case comes within the rule recited in Wild v Wild, 266 Mich 570 .

1975In that case, it was held, among other things, that where sons of a widow quitclaimed interests in their deceased father’s estate to the mother, allegedly pursuant to a parol contract of equal distribution upon her death, parol testimony was not admissible to contradict or add to the terms of a quitclaim deed absolute in form.” Tepsich v Howe Construction Co, 373 Mich 404, 407 ; 129 NW2d 398 (1964).

1975In that case, it was held, among other things, that where sons of a widow quitclaimed interests in their deceased father’s estate to the mother, allegedly pursuant to a parol contract of equal distribution upon her death, parol testimony was not admissible to contradict or add to the terms of a quitclaim deed absolute in form.” Tepsich v Howe Construction Co, 373 Mich 404, 407 ; 129 NW2d 398 (1964).

1968While we are in full agreement with the propriety of the rule that questions will not be heard on appeal unless first presented for the trial court’s determination (Haggerty v. MacGregor [1968], 9 Mich App 671 ), we note that an exception exists when to apply the rule would result in “fundamental injustice.” 3 In our opinion this case comes within the exception.

1964The defendants assert he erred in that this case comes within the principle set forth in Bridwell v. Segel, 362 Mich 102 .

1959In Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Otis Elevator Co., 315 Mich 393, 397 , 398 *423 ( 171 ALR 266 ), Mr. Justice Starr, writing for the Court, quoted from 42 CJS, Indemnity, § 35, p 626, as follows: “ ‘In an action by one wrongdoer to recover indemnity from another wrongdoer the burden of proof is on plaintiff to show that the damages in the first recovery were not occasioned by his own neglect or fault, but that they were occasioned by the negligence or default of defendant.’ ” The further question is presented as to the effect of the act of 1941, above cited, with reference to

1942Plaintiffs’ right to an easement is not barred by the doctrine of res judicata because this case comes within the exception to the general rule as stated in McDannel v. Black, 270 Mich. 305 .

1935The principal legal question involved is whether this case comes within the rule of Clinton v. Spencer, 250 Mich. 135 ; Township of Lake v. Millar, 257 Mich. 135 ; Village of Oak Park v. Van Wagoner, 271 Mich. 450 , or whether it falls within the rule of Hankinson v. Deake, 265 Mich. 1 , and Village of Clawson v. Van Wagoner, 268 Mich. 148 .

1935The principal legal question involved is whether this case comes within the rule of Clinton v. Spencer, 250 Mich. 135 ; Township of Lake v. Millar, 257 Mich. 135 ; Village of Oak Park v. Van Wagoner, 271 Mich. 450 , or whether it falls within the rule of Hankinson v. Deake, 265 Mich. 1 , and Village of Clawson v. Van Wagoner, 268 Mich. 148 .

1935The principal legal question involved is whether this case comes within the rule of Clinton v. Spencer, 250 Mich. 135 ; Township of Lake v. Millar, 257 Mich. 135 ; Village of Oak Park v. Van Wagoner, 271 Mich. 450 , or whether it falls within the rule of Hankinson v. Deake, 265 Mich. 1 , and Village of Clawson v. Van Wagoner, 268 Mich. 148 .

1935The principal legal question involved is whether this case comes within the rule of Clinton v. Spencer, 250 Mich. 135 ; Township of Lake v. Millar, 257 Mich. 135 ; Village of Oak Park v. Van Wagoner, 271 Mich. 450 , or whether it falls within the rule of Hankinson v. Deake, 265 Mich. 1 , and Village of Clawson v. Van Wagoner, 268 Mich. 148 .

1935The principal legal question involved is whether this case comes within the rule of Clinton v. Spencer, 250 Mich. 135 ; Township of Lake v. Millar, 257 Mich. 135 ; Village of Oak Park v. Van Wagoner, 271 Mich. 450 , or whether it falls within the rule of Hankinson v. Deake, 265 Mich. 1 , and Village of Clawson v. Van Wagoner, 268 Mich. 148 .

1930The facts in the present case are different, and are more analogous to those in Kerns v. Lewis, 246 Mich. 423 , where we held that the controlling question, in cases arising under the statute which makes the owner liable when the car is driven with his express or implied consent, is not who the particular driver was, but whether the car was being “driven” with the owner’s express or implied consent.

1930Defendant claims that the case comes within the rule laid down in Rogers v. Kuhnreich, 247 Mich. 204 , where husband and wife were estranged; the husband had canceled his automobile insurance, taken his car out of “live” storage, and garaged it as “dead” storage, and was in Europe when the car was driven without his knowledge or consent by a nephew who roomed with the owner’s family.

1924It seems to be supposed that that case merely decided a technical point of evidence, and is not consistent with Hayes v. Livingston, 34 Mich. 384 ( 22 Am.

1923This case comes within the rule stated in People v. Fritch, 210 Mich. 343 , and cases cited. 2.

1918In the instant case the street car upon which the plaintiff was employed was an instrumentality clearly engaged in interstate commerce, and the case comes within the test laid down in Shanks v. Railroad Co., 239 U. S. 556 (36 Sup. Ct. 188, L.

1918We quote from the brief: “These motions were based briefly on the following grounds: That no negligence had been shown on the part of the defendant; that the speed of the motor car, even granting that it was as high as 30 miles an hour, as claimed by one of plaintiff’s witnesses, was not negligent in view of the circumstances, and the opportunity which a traveler on Broadway had of seeing an approaching car; that the speed of the car was not the proximate cause of the accident; that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of Edward Block the driver; that the plaintiff was h

1914See, also, Pudritzky v. Knights of Honor, 76 Mich. 428 ( 43 N. W. 373 ); Brown v. Insurance Co., 65 Mich. 306 ( 32 N. W. 610 , 8 Am.

1914See, also, Pudritzky v. Knights of Honor, 76 Mich. 428 ( 43 N. W. 373 ); Brown v. Insurance Co., 65 Mich. 306 ( 32 N. W. 610 , 8 Am.

1914While it is true that every person is presumed to have read what he has signed, we think this case comes within the rule laid down in Temmink v. Insurance Co., 72 Mich. 388 ( 40 N. W. 469 ).

1914While it is true that every person is presumed to have read what he has signed, we think this case comes within the rule laid down in Temmink v. Insurance Co., 72 Mich. 388 ( 40 N. W. 469 ).

1912Such proof is never admissible as substantive proof of the act charged for which a respondent is being tried.” The case of People v. Hicks, 79 Mich. 457 ( 44 N. W. 931 ), arose in a county where the prior local-option law was in force, which law was declared unconstitutional.

1912Such proof is never admissible as substantive proof of the act charged for which a respondent is being tried.” The case of People v. Hicks, 79 Mich. 457 ( 44 N. W. 931 ), arose in a county where the prior local-option law was in force, which law was declared unconstitutional.

1906Counsel for plaintiff say: “ Unless this court shall be able to say that the libelous articles complained of cannot by any reasonable construction be found to refer to plaintiffs, then the question whether or not the readers of the articles believed or understood they referred to the plaintiffs is one of fact, to be submitted to a jury. * * * “The rule which determines whether or not an action will lie where a class of people is libeled is: ‘ Do the defamatory words refer to some ascertained or ascertainable person ? ’ ”— claiming this case comes within such rule, citing Fenstermaker v. Publis

1904The use of coal-tar dye being harmless, counsel for respondent insists that the case comes within the rule of the recent case of People v. Jennings, 132 Mich. 662 ( 94 N. W. 216 ).

1904The use of coal-tar dye being harmless, counsel for respondent insists that the case comes within the rule of the recent case of People v. Jennings, 132 Mich. 662 ( 94 N. W. 216 ).

1902This case comes within the rule established in People v. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 326 ( 52 N. W. 729 ), People v. Craig, 116 Mich. 388 ( 74 N. W. 528 ), and Matthews v. Detroit Journal Co., 123 Mich. 608 ( 82 N. W. 243 ), and authorities cited, in which it was held competent to show the subsequent and intimate friendly* relations of the parties.

1902This case comes within the rule established in People v. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 326 ( 52 N. W. 729 ), People v. Craig, 116 Mich. 388 ( 74 N. W. 528 ), and Matthews v. Detroit Journal Co., 123 Mich. 608 ( 82 N. W. 243 ), and authorities cited, in which it was held competent to show the subsequent and intimate friendly* relations of the parties.

1902This case comes within the rule established in People v. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 326 ( 52 N. W. 729 ), People v. Craig, 116 Mich. 388 ( 74 N. W. 528 ), and Matthews v. Detroit Journal Co., 123 Mich. 608 ( 82 N. W. 243 ), and authorities cited, in which it was held competent to show the subsequent and intimate friendly* relations of the parties.

1902The case comes within the principle announced in Brown v. Railroad Co., 118 Mich. 205 ( 76 N. W. 407 ), where it was said: “The plaintiff did not know this.

1902The case comes within the principle announced in Brown v. Railroad Co., 118 Mich. 205 ( 76 N. W. 407 ), where it was said: “The plaintiff did not know this.

1902This case comes within the rule established in People v. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 326 ( 52 N. W. 729 ), People v. Craig, 116 Mich. 388 ( 74 N. W. 528 ), and Matthews v. Detroit Journal Co., 123 Mich. 608 ( 82 N. W. 243 ), and authorities cited, in which it was held competent to show the subsequent and intimate friendly* relations of the parties.

1902This case comes within the rule established in People v. Hubbard, 92 Mich. 326 ( 52 N. W. 729 ), People v. Craig, 116 Mich. 388 ( 74 N. W. 528 ), and Matthews v. Detroit Journal Co., 123 Mich. 608 ( 82 N. W. 243 ), and authorities cited, in which it was held competent to show the subsequent and intimate friendly* relations of the parties.