Maguire v. Dutton

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Maguire v. Dutton

25 A. 254, 54 N.J.L. 597, 25 Vroom 597, 1892 N.J. LEXIS 12

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedJune 15, 1892

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 25 A. 254 (Maguire v. Dutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Maguire v. Dutton, 25 A. 254, 54 N.J.L. 597, 25 Vroom 597, 1892 N.J. LEXIS 12 (N.J. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

[598]*598The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

This is an action of replevin brought by plaintiffs, who claim to have leased, in 1887, to one John C. Bacon, a piano, that, in 1890, is found in the possession of William J. Maguire, the defendant. At the close of plaintiff’s case a non-suit was asked by the defendant upon the-ground, amongst others, that there was no proof of the value-of the piano.

This motion was denied and a judgment rendered for $250,. that being the sum at which Bacon, under his lease with the-plaintiffs, might have purchased the piano in 1889; had he, during each of the twenty-three months next succeeding June 15th, 1887, complied with the terms of the written contract.. In this judgment there is obvious error. The measure of damages that a plaintiff may recover in an action of replevinis the real value of the chattel at the time the tortious possession of the defendant began, with damages for its unlawful detention. West et at. v. Caldwell, 3 Zab. 736.

In the present case, and as to this defendant, the value of the piano nearly three years before he is alleged to have acquired it is of no legal significance. Still less so when that valuation was one established by two parties to a written lease-to which the defendant was in no wise a privy. Upon this-point we reverse the judgment below without expressing any opinion upon the other errors assigned or upon the jurisdictional question apparent on the face of the record.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue,. Dixon, Garrison, Mag-ie, Reed, Scudder, Van Syckel,.' Werts, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Smith, Whitaker. 15

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

[598]*598The opinion of the court was delivered by

Garrison, J.

This is an action of replevin brought by plaintiffs, who claim to have leased, in 1887, to one John C. Bacon, a piano, that, in 1890, is found in the possession of William J. Maguire, the defendant. At the close of plaintiff’s case a non-suit was asked by the defendant upon the-ground, amongst others, that there was no proof of the value-of the piano.

This motion was denied and a judgment rendered for $250,. that being the sum at which Bacon, under his lease with the-plaintiffs, might have purchased the piano in 1889; had he, during each of the twenty-three months next succeeding June 15th, 1887, complied with the terms of the written contract.. In this judgment there is obvious error. The measure of damages that a plaintiff may recover in an action of replevinis the real value of the chattel at the time the tortious possession of the defendant began, with damages for its unlawful detention. West et at. v. Caldwell, 3 Zab. 736.

In the present case, and as to this defendant, the value of the piano nearly three years before he is alleged to have acquired it is of no legal significance. Still less so when that valuation was one established by two parties to a written lease-to which the defendant was in no wise a privy. Upon this-point we reverse the judgment below without expressing any opinion upon the other errors assigned or upon the jurisdictional question apparent on the face of the record.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue,. Dixon, Garrison, Mag-ie, Reed, Scudder, Van Syckel,.' Werts, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Smith, Whitaker. 15

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A. 254, 54 N.J.L. 597, 25 Vroom 597, 1892 N.J. LEXIS 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maguire-v-dutton-nj-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack