Summary
In Barnard v. Brown, 112 Mich. 452; 70 N.W. 1038 (1897), the Michigan Supreme Court said that marketable title is title that is free from encumbrance and is of such a character as to assure to the purchaser the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the premises.
Summary of this case from Flynn v. KorneffelOpinion
No. 3141.
Decided May 7, 1940.
In an action for negligence, a declaration is not sufficient which gives the defendant no specific information as to the nature of the breach of duty claimed.
In such case a motion for "specifications of the negligence claimed" having been denied "without prejudice," the defendant is free to renew his motion at a later time.
CASE, for negligence in which the defendants filed a motion "that plaintiff be ordered to file specifications of the negligence claimed." After hearing, this motion was denied and the defendant excepted. Subsequently the order denying the motion was amended by adding thereto the words "without prejudice." The defendants' exception was transferred by Lorimer, J.
In the declaration it is alleged that "the said plaintiff's intestate, Russell Brown, while riding in a certain motor vehicle operated by the said defendant William Barnard, who was then and there employed by and acting for the said defendant St. Paul's School, was by reason of the carelessness and negligence of said defendants, their agents and servants, caused, suffered or permitted to fall from said truck; whereby said Russell Brown received personal injuries, from which after great mental and physical anguish he died." There is no other allegation of negligence.
Mayland H. Morse and Robert W. Upton (Mr. Laurence I. Duncan orally), for the plaintiff.
Demond, Sulloway, Piper Jones (Mr. Jones orally), for the defendants.
Justice clearly requires that at some time before trial the defendants be more specifically informed as to the nature of the breach of duty alleged against them. The present declaration gives them no information whatever as to what the plaintiff's claim of negligence may be. It is equally clear, however, from the amended record that this relief has not been finally denied to them. The order denying the motion for a specification was made "without prejudice." It seems to indicate the court's acceptance of the statement of plaintiff's counsel that their investigation of the case was not complete and their knowledge inadequate to permit a specific statement of the plaintiff's claim. In this state of the record the defendants are free to renew their motion at a later time when it will be considered de novo in the light of the circumstances then disclosed. The interlocutory order to which exception was taken raises no question of law for this court to decide.
Exception overruled.
All concurred.