Bacon v. Davis

Michigan Supreme Court

Bacon v. Davis

30 Mich. 157, 1874 Mich. LEXIS 159

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 24, 1874

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 30 Mich. 157 (Bacon v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bacon v. Davis, 30 Mich. 157, 1874 Mich. LEXIS 159 (Mich. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooley, J.

In this case Bacon, as constable, levied upon certain personal property in the possession of .the defendants in error, but did not take it into his own possession, or in any way interfere with the possession which the defendants in error had of it. They nevertheless caused it to he taken on a writ of replevin, in which Bacon was named as defendant, and on the trial of the replevin suit they have recovered judgment.

The case is within the principle of Hickey v. Hinsdale, 12 Mich., 99, and the judgment must be reversed, with costs of all the courts. The case of Maxon v. Perrott, 17 Mich., 332, which was relied upon to sustain the action, was quite different. There the officer had actually taken away a part of the property, and exercised in a very formal manner dominion over the remainder. Nothing of the kind took place here, and the plaintiffs in the replevin suit have had the officer go through the form of delivering over to them on the writ the property of which they were in the peaceable and undisputed possession before. Replevin lies to obtain pos[158]*158session of personal property, and cannot be turned into a suit to quiet a party’s title to property already in his possession.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cooley, J.

In this case Bacon, as constable, levied upon certain personal property in the possession of .the defendants in error, but did not take it into his own possession, or in any way interfere with the possession which the defendants in error had of it. They nevertheless caused it to he taken on a writ of replevin, in which Bacon was named as defendant, and on the trial of the replevin suit they have recovered judgment.

The case is within the principle of Hickey v. Hinsdale, 12 Mich., 99, and the judgment must be reversed, with costs of all the courts. The case of Maxon v. Perrott, 17 Mich., 332, which was relied upon to sustain the action, was quite different. There the officer had actually taken away a part of the property, and exercised in a very formal manner dominion over the remainder. Nothing of the kind took place here, and the plaintiffs in the replevin suit have had the officer go through the form of delivering over to them on the writ the property of which they were in the peaceable and undisputed possession before. Replevin lies to obtain pos[158]*158session of personal property, and cannot be turned into a suit to quiet a party’s title to property already in his possession.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 Mich. 157, 1874 Mich. LEXIS 159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bacon-v-davis-mich-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack