
    James H. Gray v. Harmon D. Pike et al.
    
      Mis-trial — Defective finding.
    
    In a suit on a guaranty of collection, a finding that shows an apparent exhaustion of legal remedies, but does not describe or identify the note or show that the plaintiff is still holder, amounts to a mis-trial.
    Error to Lapeer.
    Submitted April 9.
    Decided April 16.
    Assumpsit on guaranty of collection. Defendant brings error.
    
      R. L. Taylor for plaintiff in error.
    A finding of facts, like a special verdict, must contain all the facts necessary to warrant the judgment, Ortmann v. Wilson, 23 Mich., 269; Pealody v. McAvoy, id., 526; Wood v. LaRue, 9 Mich., 158; Trudo v. Anderson, 10 Mich., 357; Shelden v. Dutcher, 35 Mich., 10.
    
      Geer & Williams for defendants in error.
   Campbell, C. J.

Suit being brought on guaranty of oUection the judge who tried the cause made a special finding which, while referring to a note of some kind and its guaranty, finds facts showing an apparent exhaustion of legal remedies. But the note itself is not described or identified, nor is it found that the plaintiff is still holder.

The mistake is a slip which has led to a mis-trial. The judgment must be reversed with costs and a new trial granted.

The other Justices concurred.  