Dinger v. Miller

Michigan Supreme Court

Dinger v. Miller

39 Mich. 332, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 294

DecidedOctober 15, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 39 Mich. 332 (Dinger v. Miller) 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

Dinger v. Miller, 39 Mich. 332, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 294 (Mich. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

Graves, J.

Miller sued in the circuit court for slander and recovered $25. For this sum he took judgment and also for "$155.25 costs. This allowance for costs [333]*333was made against the objection of plaintiff in error that no more costs than damages were recoverable. The objection was well based. The case was governed by those provisions which give costs to the plaintiff to an amount not exceeding the damages found. Comp. L., §§ 7387, 7388; Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich., 484; Meyer v. Wood, 38 Mich., 297; People on rel. of Stortz v. Circuit Judge, id., 243; Dikeman v. Harrison, id., 617. We held in Inkster v. Carver that the Act of 1867 worked no change in that part of the pre-existing law that determined which party should recover costs. The act referred to assumed to arrange a scale of services and prices for taxation and to provide for certain party allowances where there were no specific regulations to exclude them. But it did not attempt to fix abstractly how much or how little in gross should only be recoverable in any specific actions, or to graduate the entire sum to be allowed by any standard which the amount of damages would furnish. That subject was left to be governed by other provisions the Legislature deemed salutary and were satisfied with, and the last section cited is one of them. The question is-not affected by the Act of April 15th, 1871.

The judgment must be reversed, with the costs of this court; but a proper judgment may' be entered here upon the verdict.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Graves, J.

Miller sued in the circuit court for slander and recovered $25. For this sum he took judgment and also for "$155.25 costs. This allowance for costs [333]*333was made against the objection of plaintiff in error that no more costs than damages were recoverable. The objection was well based. The case was governed by those provisions which give costs to the plaintiff to an amount not exceeding the damages found. Comp. L., §§ 7387, 7388; Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich., 484; Meyer v. Wood, 38 Mich., 297; People on rel. of Stortz v. Circuit Judge, id., 243; Dikeman v. Harrison, id., 617. We held in Inkster v. Carver that the Act of 1867 worked no change in that part of the pre-existing law that determined which party should recover costs. The act referred to assumed to arrange a scale of services and prices for taxation and to provide for certain party allowances where there were no specific regulations to exclude them. But it did not attempt to fix abstractly how much or how little in gross should only be recoverable in any specific actions, or to graduate the entire sum to be allowed by any standard which the amount of damages would furnish. That subject was left to be governed by other provisions the Legislature deemed salutary and were satisfied with, and the last section cited is one of them. The question is-not affected by the Act of April 15th, 1871.

The judgment must be reversed, with the costs of this court; but a proper judgment may' be entered here upon the verdict.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 Mich. 332, 1878 Mich. LEXIS 294, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dinger-v-miller-mich-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack