Johnson v. Gillen

Michigan Supreme Court

Johnson v. Gillen

103 N.W. 547, 140 Mich. 152, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 530

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 12, 1905

DocketDocket No. 16

StatusPublished

This text of 103 N.W. 547 (Johnson v. Gillen) 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

Johnson v. Gillen, 103 N.W. 547, 140 Mich. 152, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 530 (Mich. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Hooker, J.

The plaintiff, a student, left some personal effects with a lady in Ann Arbor, at whose house he boarded, and with one Lemon and others went to Europe, where he became indebted to Lemon. He was gone upwards of two years. Lemon returned within a few months, and a year or more later sued out a writ of attachment against plaintiff, under which the defendants seized and sold the goods upon execution subsequently issued. They were purchased by Lemon, who afterwards sold some of them and retained others. This action is trover, brought against the sheriff and his deputies who seized and sold the property. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the jury found in his favor the sum of $100. Upon motion the court rendered judgment therefor, but gave defendants a judgment for costs.

There are many assignments of error which we need not discuss, as the judgment must be reversed for the neglect of the court to direct the jury to give plaintiff interest upon the value of the goods unlawfully converted, as requested by the plaintiff’s counsel. See rough v. Womer, 76 Mich. 383.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered, unless the defendants, with the consent of the plaintiff, shall elect to submit to a judgment for the amount of the verdict, with interest thereon from the date of the execution sale and costs. The plaintiff will recover costs of this court.

Carpenter, McAlvay, Grant, and Montgomery, JJ., concurred.

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

Hooker, J.

The plaintiff, a student, left some personal effects with a lady in Ann Arbor, at whose house he boarded, and with one Lemon and others went to Europe, where he became indebted to Lemon. He was gone upwards of two years. Lemon returned within a few months, and a year or more later sued out a writ of attachment against plaintiff, under which the defendants seized and sold the goods upon execution subsequently issued. They were purchased by Lemon, who afterwards sold some of them and retained others. This action is trover, brought against the sheriff and his deputies who seized and sold the property. The court directed a verdict for the plaintiff, and the jury found in his favor the sum of $100. Upon motion the court rendered judgment therefor, but gave defendants a judgment for costs.

There are many assignments of error which we need not discuss, as the judgment must be reversed for the neglect of the court to direct the jury to give plaintiff interest upon the value of the goods unlawfully converted, as requested by the plaintiff’s counsel. See rough v. Womer, 76 Mich. 383.

The judgment will be reversed, and a new trial ordered, unless the defendants, with the consent of the plaintiff, shall elect to submit to a judgment for the amount of the verdict, with interest thereon from the date of the execution sale and costs. The plaintiff will recover costs of this court.

Carpenter, McAlvay, Grant, and Montgomery, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 N.W. 547, 140 Mich. 152, 1905 Mich. LEXIS 530, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-gillen-mich-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack