
    SINNOTT v NOBLE
    1. Trial—Instructions—Failure to Object—Briefs—Court Rules —Appeal and Error.
    Leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court was improvidently granted where the only meritorious issue raised by the appellant was the correctness of the charge to the jury, no objection having been made by the appellant at trial and the issue not having been framed by appellant in his brief; therefore, the issue is not properly before the Supreme Court and that Court does not pass on the correctness of the instructions given and neither approves nor disapproves them (GCR 1963, 516, 813, 854).
    Appeal from Court of Appeals, Division 1, Lesinski, C. J., and Levin and O’Hara, JJ., affirming Wayne, George T. Martin, J.
    Submitted September 5,1973.
    (No. 10
    September Term 1973,
    Docket No. 54,365.)
    Decided September 18, 1973.
    Complaint by Dorothy Sinnott against Alexander Noble, Richard Louis Ohlrich, and The Budd Company for damages for injuries sustained in an automobile collision. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants Richard Louis Ohlrich and The Budd Company appealed to the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. Defendants Richard Louis Ohlrich and The Budd Company appeal.
    Appeal dismissed as improvidently granted.
    
      Maile, Leach & Schreier, for plaintiff.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    [1] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545 et seq.
    
    
      
      Alexander, Buchanan & Seavitt, for defendants Ohlrich and The Budd Company.
   Per Curiam.

Order.

The issues upon which leave to appeal in this matter was heretofore granted having been thoroughly examined, and briefs and arguments thereon considered, it is the opinion of the Court that leave to appeal wus improvidently granted.

The only meritorious issue raised by appellant was the correctness of the charge to the jury. It is not properly before us at this time, no objection having been made by appellant at trial, OCR 1963, 516, and the issue not having been framed by appellant in his brief, GCR 1963, 854; 813. For additional reasons and discussion see 30 L Ed 2d 829, 847-854.

Accordingly, the Court does not pass on the correctness of the instructions given, and neither approves nor disapproves them.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and T. E. Brennan, T. G. Kavanagh, Swainson, Williams, and M. S. Coleman, JJ:, concurred.

Levin, J., did not sit in this case.  