
    Arthur B. Cram v. Artemas L. Stiles et al.
    
      Indefinite finding of facts — Mis-Prial.
    A case is treated, as one of mistrial where the finding of facts is not specific enough to show whether the judgment is correct.
    ■ A judgment rendered on a finding that is not specific enough to show whether it is correct may be reversed without costs to give opportunity for correcting the record.
    Case made from Jackson.
    Submitted Oct. 18.
    Decided Oct. 19.
    
      Assumpsit against defendants as sureties for the payment of a debt evidenced by a bond given by them as trustees of the First Methodist Episcopal Church of Jackson. Defendants had given a contract of suretyship to plaintiff’s intestate dated February 1, 1868, and this agreement was twice extended by contracts dated February 1,1873, and July 31, 1879. On February 1, 1879, a computation was made by the plaintiff and the trustees with defendants’ knowledge whereby the amount then due was fixed at $8010.69.
    
      Frederick T. Sibley for plaintiff in error.
    
      Thomas A. Wilson for defendant in error Stiles.
   Cooley, J.

The finding of facts in this case is not sufficiently specific to enable us to see clearly whether the judgment is or is not correct. For that jiurpose the computation should be given or something equivalent. If the plaintiff relies upon the agreement of 1879 having failed, we ought to have the facts presented which would show the failure. The case is to be treated as one of mis-trial, and the judgment will be reversed without costs to give opportunity for correction.

The other Justices concurred.  