honest error in Michigan

2019See Brooks v Bellows, 179 Mich 421, 431 ; 146 NW 311 (1914); see also Moran v Schmitt, 109 Mich 282, 292 ; 67 NW 323 (1896) (“The rule is well settled that an award or estimate, if made, can be impeached for fraud, or such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, or failure to exercise an honest judgment in the premises.”); and also see Carlini v US Rubber Co, 8 Mich App 501, 505 ; 154 NW2d 595 (1967).2 In Malone v Gates, 87 Mich 332, 336 ; 49 NW 638 (1891), our Supreme Court explained that it used the term gross mistake to signify “a mistake not depending upon the judgment of the [

2019See Brooks v Bellows, 179 Mich 421, 431 ; 146 NW 311 (1914); see also Moran v Schmitt, 109 Mich 282, 292 ; 67 NW 323 (1896) (“The rule is well settled that an award or estimate, if made, can be impeached for fraud, or such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, or failure to exercise an honest judgment in the premises.”); and also see Carlini v US Rubber Co, 8 Mich App 501, 505 ; 154 NW2d 595 (1967).2 In Malone v Gates, 87 Mich 332, 336 ; 49 NW 638 (1891), our Supreme Court explained that it used the term gross mistake to signify “a mistake not depending upon the judgment of the [

1928Luka v. Lowrie, supra; Williams v. Poppleton, 3 Ore. 139 .

1912As was said by Upton, J., in Williams v. Poppleton, 3 Or. 139 : “In cases like this the court and jury do not undertake to determine what is the best mode of treatment, or to decide questions of medical science upon which surgeons differ among themselves.” It is, we think, very clear upon this record that the question presented to the defendant, at the moment he was called upon to act, was one of judgment only.

1912This case is within the principle of the recent case of Crane v. Bennington School District, 61 Mich. 299 [ 28 N. W. 105 ], where questions quite analogous were Taised.

1912This case is within the principle of the recent case of Crane v. Bennington School District, 61 Mich. 299 [ 28 N. W. 105 ], where questions quite analogous were Taised.

2019See Brooks v Bellows, 179 Mich 421, 431 ; 146 NW 311 (1914); see also Moran v Schmitt, 109 Mich 282, 292 ; 67 NW 323 (1896) (“The rule is well settled that an award or estimate, if made, can be impeached for fraud, or such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, or failure to exercise an honest judgment in the premises.”); and also see Carlini v US Rubber Co, 8 Mich App 501, 505 ; 154 NW2d 595 (1967).2 In Malone v Gates, 87 Mich 332, 336 ; 49 NW 638 (1891), our Supreme Court explained that it used the term gross mistake to signify “a mistake not depending upon the judgment of the [

2019See Brooks v Bellows, 179 Mich 421, 431 ; 146 NW 311 (1914); see also Moran v Schmitt, 109 Mich 282, 292 ; 67 NW 323 (1896) (“The rule is well settled that an award or estimate, if made, can be impeached for fraud, or such gross mistake as would necessarily imply bad faith, or failure to exercise an honest judgment in the premises.”); and also see Carlini v US Rubber Co, 8 Mich App 501, 505 ; 154 NW2d 595 (1967).2 In Malone v Gates, 87 Mich 332, 336 ; 49 NW 638 (1891), our Supreme Court explained that it used the term gross mistake to signify “a mistake not depending upon the judgment of the [

2014First, it contends that Cooper denied that “bad faith requires a ‘higher intentionality.’” A review of Cooper’s testimony, however, reveals that Cooper testified consistently with the statements by the Supreme Court in Commercial Union Ins Co, 426 Mich at 136-137 , when he testified that an honest error of judgment did not constitute bad faith and that bad faith is a state of mind described as arbitrary, indifferent, or reckless.

1943The reporter’s note refers, among others, to In re Welton’s Estate, 141 Misc. 674 ( 253 N. Y.

1943The reporter’s note refers, among others, to In re Welton’s Estate, 141 Misc. 674 ( 253 N. Y.

1931But if he omits to inform himself as to the facts and circumstances, or does not possess the knowledge, experience, or skill which he professes, then a failure, if caused thereby, would be negligence.’ * * * “It would be unreasonable to hold a properly qualified physician or surgeon responsible for an honest error of judgment, where* as in the instant case, he is called upon to act in an emergency and must choose between two courses of action either one of which involves the possibility of gravest hazard to the patient.” In Delahunt v. Finton, 244 Mich. 226 , it was said: “It is settled that a

1928Luka v. Lowrie, supra; Williams v. Poppleton, 3 Ore. 139 .

1920Fairbairn v. Moody, 116 Mich. 65 ; Halpin v. Garman, 192 Mich. 71 ; Scheibner v. Gohnen, 108 Mich. 165 ; Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, supra. From a review of the evidence we find no occasion to disturb the trial court’s computation of the amount due. 6.

1920Fairbairn v. Moody, 116 Mich. 65 ; Halpin v. Garman, 192 Mich. 71 ; Scheibner v. Gohnen, 108 Mich. 165 ; Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, supra. From a review of the evidence we find no occasion to disturb the trial court’s computation of the amount due. 6.

1920Fairbairn v. Moody, 116 Mich. 65 ; Halpin v. Garman, 192 Mich. 71 ; Scheibner v. Gohnen, 108 Mich. 165 ; Union Trust Co. v. Casserly, supra. From a review of the evidence we find no occasion to disturb the trial court’s computation of the amount due. 6.

1912The board cannot, by abstaining from holding meetings, and from doing its duty, set up its own wrong in defense of an honest claim.” In Cowley v. School District, 130 Mich. 634 ( 90 N. W. 680 ), there was no performance of his contract by the teacher and no ratification thereof by official action of the board.

1912The board cannot, by abstaining from holding meetings, and from doing its duty, set up its own wrong in defense of an honest claim.” In Cowley v. School District, 130 Mich. 634 ( 90 N. W. 680 ), there was no performance of his contract by the teacher and no ratification thereof by official action of the board.

1902This case, therefore, affords no room for the application of the rule of Young v. Iron Co., 65 Mich. 111 ( 31 N. W. 814 ), that “corporators are not responsible for an honest error of judgment, or a mistake, in placing a valuation upon property appropriated or used as capital,” and as approved in Graves v. Brooks, 117 Mich. 424 ( 75 N. W. 932 ).

1902This case, therefore, affords no room for the application of the rule of Young v. Iron Co., 65 Mich. 111 ( 31 N. W. 814 ), that “corporators are not responsible for an honest error of judgment, or a mistake, in placing a valuation upon property appropriated or used as capital,” and as approved in Graves v. Brooks, 117 Mich. 424 ( 75 N. W. 932 ).

1902This case, therefore, affords no room for the application of the rule of Young v. Iron Co., 65 Mich. 111 ( 31 N. W. 814 ), that “corporators are not responsible for an honest error of judgment, or a mistake, in placing a valuation upon property appropriated or used as capital,” and as approved in Graves v. Brooks, 117 Mich. 424 ( 75 N. W. 932 ).

1902This case, therefore, affords no room for the application of the rule of Young v. Iron Co., 65 Mich. 111 ( 31 N. W. 814 ), that “corporators are not responsible for an honest error of judgment, or a mistake, in placing a valuation upon property appropriated or used as capital,” and as approved in Graves v. Brooks, 117 Mich. 424 ( 75 N. W. 932 ).

1895By gross mistake we mean a mistake which is clearly shown to have left out some of the logs, or increased the scale by a mistake in the tally or in the addition of the amounts on the tally-sheets, or something of that kind, and not an honest error of judgment in the scaler; for it is well understood and established that, in estimating the merchantable lumber in a given log, the judgment of scalers varies more or less, and that the scale cannot be made so accurate that all scalers will agree upon it.” In Savercool v. Farwell, 17 Mich. 308, 321 , it was said: “It was insisted by the defendant be