MOORE, C. J. This is an application for an order to compel the register of the circuit court for the county of Kent, in chancery, to make a return to an appeal, where the $5 fee was not paid within 30 days after the settlement of the case. It is claimed the order may be made under the provisions of Act No. 15 of the Public Acts of 1905, which amended section 552, 1 Comp. Laws, by adding the following proviso:

66

'Provided, however, That when any such appeal shall, either before or after the passage of this act, have been dismissed for nonpayment of said register's fee within said period of thirty days, if the appellant shall by petition and competent proof make it appear to the Supreme Court that said fee has since been paid and that justice requires a revision of the case upon the merits, said court may reinstate such appeal upon such terms as may be just; but such reinstatement shall not be allowed without due notice to the party adversely interested and giving him an opportunity to be heard, nor unless the petition therefor shall be filed within one year after such dismissal."

Three objections are made by the defendant to the granting of the order: First, that the failure to pay the fee is not excused; second, that the case at bar does not come within the provisions of Act No. 15; third, that justice does not require a revision of the case upon the merits. We think it necessary to consider only the third objection. An examination of the record satisfies us that justice does not require a revision of the case upon the merits.

The application for the order is denied.

CARPENTER, MCALVAY, GRANT, and BLAIR, JJ., concurred.

WALTON v. RYAN.

APPEAL AND ERROR-FINDINGS-CONCLUSIVENESS.

Where in a case tried to the court without a jury, the evidence is conflicting, but there is testimony which, if believed, justifies the findings, the judgment will be affirmed.

Error to Kent; Wolcott, J. Submitted July 21, 1905. (Docket No. 178.) Decided September 28, 1905.

Assumpsit by Terry Walton against Otis H. Ryan for breach of warranty in the sale of a horse. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

McBride & Connell, for appellant.

Rodgers & Rodgers, for appellee.

MOORE, C. J. This case was commenced in justice's court. It was appealed to the circuit court, where it was tried by the judge without a jury. Several witnesses were sworn on the part of each of the parties to the litigation. The judge made findings of fact and law, and rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant asked the judge to amend his findings in such a way as would result in a judgment for defendant. This the judge declined to do. Exceptions were taken to said denial and to the findings as made. A motion was then made for a new trial, which motion was denied. The case is brought here by writ of error.

It would profit no one to take up each of the assignments of error. An examination of the record shows testimony which, if believed, justified the findings made by the judge. See Cole v. Shaw, 103 Mich. 505; Lamoreaux v. Creveling, 103 Mich. 501; Crockett v. Bearce, 104 Mich. 257; Boyle v. Walsh, 105 Mich. 237; Painter

v. Ledyard, 109 Mich. 568; Fuller v. Ehle, 116 Mich. 13; Childs v. Nordella, 116 Mich. 511; Morse v. Blanchard, 117 Mich. 37.

Judgment is affirmed.

CARPENTER, MCALVAY, GRANT, and BLAIR, JJ., con

curred.

HALL v. CITY OF KALAMAZOO.

APPEAL AND ERROR-DECISION-PRIOR SUIT-RES ADJUDICATA. All points both of fact and law raised by a record on error are res adjudicata in another suit between the same parties on the same cause of action, though the court in affirming the prior judgment discussed only the point deemed decisive of the case, and as to the others stated that the circuit judge decided correctly.

Error to Kalamazoo; Hopkins, J., presiding. Submitted April 25, 1905. (Docket No. 85.) Decided October 2, 1905.

Trover by William B. Hall against the city of Kalamazoo and Fred Winslow, city treasurer. There was judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

This is an action of trover between the same parties, involving the same property and the same issues, and based upon the same facts as those in Hall v. City of Kalamazoo, 131 Mich. 404. After the affirmance of that case, Mr. Hall brought this action. The defendant gave notice with his plea that all the issues in this case were passed

141 503 157 151

upon and disposed of in the former suit, and that all questions were therefore res adjudicata.

The case was tried before the court without a jury. Plaintiff's attorney made an opening statement of his claim, which covers the same facts and issues as those passed upon in the former suit. It was then conceded by counsel that the goods involved and the parties to this suit were the same as in the former suit, and that the record in that case should stand as the record in this, so far as it raises the question of res adjudicata. The court held that the questions involved were res adjudicata by the former suit, and entered judgment for the defendant.

E. A. Crane, for appellant.

Harry C. Howard (William R. Fox, of counsel), for appellees.

GRANT, J. (after stating the facts). All the issues presented upon this record were fully considered and passed upon by the circuit court for the county of Kalamazoo in the former case. The record in that case contains 285 pages. It was tried before the court without a jury. Counsel for plaintiff presented 96 findings of fact and 29 findings of law, covering 37 pages of the record. Counsel for the defendants presented 22 findings of fact and 13 findings of law, covering 12 pages. The court's findings of fact number 31 and cover 14 pages, and his conclusions of law cover 3 pages. The record contains 140 assignments of error. A comparison of plaintiff's opening statement in this case with his brief in this court in the former shows that they are identical in substance and, to a great extent, in language.

Plaintiff in the former suit claimed title and right of action mainly upon three grounds: (1) That he purchased the goods at the public sale; (2) that he purchased and took an assignment of an attachment suit and the claim of the plaintiff thereunder, the Kalamazoo Supply & Construction Company; and (3) that he had an inter

est in two chattel mortgages which gave him title sufficient to maintain suit. Those claims and all questions bearing thereon were distinctly passed upon and decided by the circuit court against the plaintiff. All these questions were brought to this court for determination and fully presented. The language of that decision is plain that "the court [the circuit] found against all the claims of the plaintiff, and we think correctly." This language affirmed all the rulings of the circuit judge bearing upon the plaintiff's claim. We did not specifically discuss each one in the opinion, inasmuch as one of the findings was decisive, viz., that the defendant had not, at the time suit was brought, the possession or control of the goods. Holding that the court ruled correctly on all the other points makes the case as clearly res adjudicata as though we had taken up, discussed, and affirmed each holding separately.

It is no uncommon practice for courts, where several points are raised for determination, to affirm the case upon one point, and to say that, as to the other points, the decision of the court below was correct. All such questions, whether of fact or law, are then res adjudicata, and in another suit, brought for the same cause of action, it is of no importance whether the conclusions, either of fact or law, are right or wrong. Jacobson v. Miller, 41 Mich. 90; Carr v. Brick, 113 Mich. 664. See, also, 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.), pp. 765, 766.

Judgment affirmed.

MOORE, C. J., and BLAIR, MONTGOMERY, and OSTRANDER, JJ., concurred.