Hatch v. Hart
2 Mich. 289
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
Hatch v. Hart, 2 Mich. 289 (Mich. 1851).
2 Mich. 289 (Hatch v. Hart) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
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)