From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spencer v. Black

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 22, 1925
232 Mich. 675 (Mich. 1925)

Summary

holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal was not properly before this Court

Summary of this case from Wells v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.

Opinion

Docket No. 56.

Submitted October 13, 1925.

Decided December 22, 1925.

Error to Calhoun; North (Walter H.), J. Submitted October 13, 1925. (Docket No. 56.) Decided December 22, 1925.

Assumpsit by John Wesley Spencer against William E. Black and Eva A. Black for services rendered. Judgment for plaintiff.

Defendant Eva A. Black brings error. Affirmed.

N.A. Cobb and M.B. Allen, for appellant.

Mechem Mechem, for appellee.


Defendants, husband and wife, owned a house and lot as tenants by the entireties. Plaintiff, claiming to have furnished labor and materials for improving and repairing the dwelling and funds used to pay taxes and to pay interest and principal of a mortgage covering the property, sued to recover. The declaration has an assumpsit count. Judgment in usual assumpsit form was entered against both defendants. Defendant Eva A. Black seeks review on error, without bill of exceptions, under Supreme Court Rule No. 11. Appellant raises two questions. The first, quoting:

"The sole question of law involved here is, whether or not a married woman can be bound, by an oral promise, for materials furnished and services performed on property held by entireties."

The record does not show that this question was brought to the attention of the trial court. It cannot be raised here for the first time.

The second, quoting:

"Counsel contend that the form of the judgment, even if there was a joint liability in assumpsit, was not in manner and form as prescribed by statute. Act No. 158, Pub. Acts 1917, § 4 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 11488 [4])."

For the reason that the record does not show that the attention of the trial court was called to this matter, it will not be considered here. Gill v. DeArmant, 90 Mich. 425; Miller v. Walker, 141 Mich. 433; Menery v. Backus, 107 Mich. 329; Kingsnorth v. Baker, 213 Mich. 294.

Judgment affirmed.

McDONALD, C.J., and BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ., concurred.


Summaries of

Spencer v. Black

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 22, 1925
232 Mich. 675 (Mich. 1925)

holding that an issue raised for the first time on appeal was not properly before this Court

Summary of this case from Wells v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
Case details for

Spencer v. Black

Case Details

Full title:SPENCER v. BLACK

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Dec 22, 1925

Citations

232 Mich. 675 (Mich. 1925)
206 N.W. 493

Citing Cases

Napier v. Jacobs

A general rule of trial practice is that failure to timely raise an issue waives review of that issue on…

Kline v. Kline

The terms listed at B, D, E, and F were contained in the judgment but were not challenged when the motion for…