Hatch v. Hart
2 Mich. 289
This text of 2 Mich. 289 (Hatch v. Hart) 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
Hatch v. Hart, 2 Mich. 289 (Mich. 1851).
Opinion
The value of the services of an attorney and counsel for the plaintiff in replevin, or any fees actually paid by the plaintiff to his attorney and counsel in the prosecution of a replevin suit, constitutes no part of the damages contemplated by the statute, and cannot be legally taken into consideration in the assessment of such damages.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Bass v. Spitz
522 F. Supp. 1343 (E.D. Michigan, 1981)
Eade v. First Nat. Bank of Condon
242 P. 833 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1925)
Gregory v. Woodbery
53 Fla. 566 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1907)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
2 Mich. 289, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hatch-v-hart-mich-1851.