Fields v. Crawford

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Fields v. Crawford

30 F. Cas. 1080, 2 Hayw. & H.D.C. 256, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 670

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedApril 4, 1857

StatusPublished

This text of 30 F. Cas. 1080 (Fields v. Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fields v. Crawford, 30 F. Cas. 1080, 2 Hayw. & H.D.C. 256, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 670 (circtddc 1857).

Pincite

Opinion

These facts being submitted"'to the court, and being argued by counsel, the court decided that the sheriff, in leaving the property in Johnson’s possession, subjected it, even in the [1081]*1081state of Maryland, to be seized upon by any subsequent creditors of Johnson in that state; but even if the levy and execution created a valid lien on the property in that state, yet the bringing of the property out of the jurisdiction of the state forfeited any lien the sheriff might have upon it The court instructed the jury to find for the defendant

Á question then rose as to'the form of the judgment to.be rendered. Mr. Jones contended that the jury were not to assess the damages for the unlawful taking and .retention ol the property by the plaintiff, and a retomo habendo awarded. .The court decided that the only.judgment the defendant in replevin could receive was one cent nominal damages, and a retomo habendo, and the defendant must rely-upon a suit- on the replevin bond for his damages. Mr. Jones, in reply, did not see why, if one cent damages could be given, more could not, and took exception.. The counsel for the plaintiff, however, agreed that the case might at once be submitted to the jury to assess both the value of the property and damages. The jury gave a verdict for the defendant to the amount claimed, viz., $125, with interest from the date of the replevin.

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

These facts being submitted"'to the court, and being argued by counsel, the court decided that the sheriff, in leaving the property in Johnson’s possession, subjected it, even in the [1081]*1081state of Maryland, to be seized upon by any subsequent creditors of Johnson in that state; but even if the levy and execution created a valid lien on the property in that state, yet the bringing of the property out of the jurisdiction of the state forfeited any lien the sheriff might have upon it The court instructed the jury to find for the defendant

Á question then rose as to'the form of the judgment to.be rendered. Mr. Jones contended that the jury were not to assess the damages for the unlawful taking and .retention ol the property by the plaintiff, and a retomo habendo awarded. .The court decided that the only.judgment the defendant in replevin could receive was one cent nominal damages, and a retomo habendo, and the defendant must rely-upon a suit- on the replevin bond for his damages. Mr. Jones, in reply, did not see why, if one cent damages could be given, more could not, and took exception.. The counsel for the plaintiff, however, agreed that the case might at once be submitted to the jury to assess both the value of the property and damages. The jury gave a verdict for the defendant to the amount claimed, viz., $125, with interest from the date of the replevin.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 F. Cas. 1080, 2 Hayw. & H.D.C. 256, 1857 U.S. App. LEXIS 670, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-crawford-circtddc-1857.