32 Mich. 248 | Mich. | 1875
Tlie motion for a new trial in this cause is denied. If good cause for a new trial existed, tlie motion should hayo been made at tlie last term; the report having been on file considerably more than a month before that term closed.' But wo think no good cause existed. What is relied upon is, that the attorney for respondents, upon whom they depended for the trial of tlie case, was unable from illness to attend to it when the trial took place, and therefore formally withdrew from the case, serving a written notice thereof
Several objections are made to the motion on behalf of the relators for final judgment. Tho first is, that tho judge has not certified tho evidence. But this was not required by the order sending tho case down for trial.
Another is, that tho finding upon the issue is not sufficient to warrant a judgment, and it is claimed that it cannot be aided by answers of the jury to specific questions put to them which perhaps show defaults of the company not shown by that finding. The finding is, that tho plank road of respondents has been for more than six years in a broken and worn-out condition for its entire length, and has been for that time and still continues to be entirely unsafe, and in an unsafe condition for vehicles to pass over and upon. This finding covers tho whole substance of the issue.
It is said the jury do not find that it was in this unsafe condition through the neglect or fault of the respondents;
It was also objected, somewhat faintly, that the evidence-did not warrant the verdict, but it seems to have been ample.
Judgment of ouster must be entered.