
    BOYER v. CROWN AIR CONDITIONING & HEATING CO., INC.
    Appeal and Error — Instructions—Objections—Saving Question por Review.
    Objection to instructions of trial court to jury on possible damages is untimely when raised for the first time in a motion for new trial, where judge, sitting in chambers, before closing arguments, said that he intended to submit the conflicting claims of the parties concerning damages to the jury as a question of fact, defendant did not objeet, the defendant made no objection after the court had instructed the jury, and the verdict of the jury was within the limits of the court’s instructions and the evidence (GCR 1963, 516.2).
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 623.
    Appeal from Common Pleas Court of Detroit, Rodgers (Julian P., Jr.), J.
    Submitted Division 1 February 8, 1968, at Detroit.
    (Docket No. 3,713.)
    Decided May 28, 1968.
    Complaint by Richard M. Boyer against Crown Air Conditioning & Heating Co., Inc., a Michigan corporation, for bonus accrued under an oral contract of employment. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Louis Rosensweig, for plaintiff.
    
      George Gregory Mantho (Larry L. Kline, of counsel), for defendant.
   Burns, P. J.

Defendant appeals from an order denying his motion for new trial which raised an objection to instructions on possible damages.

Defendant had two previous opportunities to apprise the court of the allegedly objectionable nature of the court’s instructions. Prior to closing oral arguments the judge, sitting in chambers, noted that plaintiff’s requested instructions were ambiguous, and consequently he clearly indicated that he intended to submit the conflicting claims concerning damages as a question of fact; defendant did not object to this proposal at that time. After the court so instructed the jury, counsel failed to make known his objection to the court’s instructions pertaining to the computation of damages as required by GCR 1963, 516.2. Defendant’s sole assignment of error was untimely.

The verdict of the jury was within the limits of the court’s instructions and the evidence.

Affirmed. Costs to plaintiff-appellee.

Holbrook and Peterson, JJ., concurred,  