Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

92 Mich. 621

Winklemeir v. Daiber

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 28, 1892

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1892-07-28

<p>Trial — Postponement—Discretion of court.</p> <p>The question whether defendant should have been compelled to go to trial was within the discretion of the trial court, which discretion is held not to have been abused.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1892-07-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently October 1924

4 state decisions

201892190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

McGrath, J.

¶1This was assumpsit upon a contract for building two cottages, the balance claimed to be ■ due being $125, for which amount plaintiff had judgment.

¶2Plaintiff claimed that the work tvas done upon a contract for a specific amount for each of the two,houses, and defendant denied any such contract, and insisted that plaintiff was to receive a given amount per day for his work. Exceptions were taken to the charge of the court and to the refusal to give certain requests. The court submitted the issue to the jury fairly and properly, and it is not necessary to discuss either the instructions given or the requests refused.

¶3The question as to whether defendant should have been compelled to go to trial under the circumstances detailed was one within the trial court’s discretion, and no abuse of such discretion is shown.

¶4The judgment is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

The other Justices concurred.
/92/mich/621 · .json · Public domain