Mars v. Germany

100 So. 23, 135 Miss. 387, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 44
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedApril 14, 1924
DocketNo. 24076
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 100 So. 23 (Mars v. Germany) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mars v. Germany, 100 So. 23, 135 Miss. 387, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 44 (Mich. 1924).

Opinion

Holden, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

ON SUGGESTION OR ERROR.

This case was recently affirmed without an opinion by this division. The suggestion of error now before us presents a new point which was not made by the appellant on the main presentation, and that is that the recovery of one hundred and twenty-five dollars by the appellees as attorney’s fees and expenses in attending the trial was wrongfully allowed by the lower court because the defendant in the replevin suit cannot recover this character of damages, unless willfulness, malice, or fraud is shown.

The case of Thornton v. Gardner, 99 So. 131, recently decided by Division B of this court, expressly sustains the point made by the appellant on this suggestion of error. The two cases are practically identical, and we shall follow that decision and affirm the lower court in the case before us in all respects, except that the recovery of one hundred twenty-five dollars as damages for attorney’s fees and attendance at court must be annulled, and nominal damages in the sum of one dollar only will be allowed the appellee.

It is true, the general rule is that we do not consider new points made first on suggestion of error; however, it is optional with the court as to whether it will consider a point first made by suggestion of error, and in the in[390]*390stant case we think the complaint of appellant is so pregnant with merit that we have decided to sustain it.

Therefore the judgment of the lower court is affirmed, and the amount of damages allowed appellee is reduced to the sum of one dollar.

Overruled in part, and sustained in part.

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

Related

Hung Kwong Leung v. Law
247 So. 2d 695 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1971)
Standard Finance Corp. v. Breland
163 So. 2d 232 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1964)
Port Distributing Corp. v. Mitchell
157 So. 2d 51 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1963)
Craig v. Mercy Hospital-Street Memorial
45 So. 2d 809 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1950)
Ellzey v. Frederic
3 So. 2d 849 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1941)
Eady v. State
122 So. 199 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1929)
Smith Chevrolet Co. v. Finch
117 So. 258 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 So. 23, 135 Miss. 387, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 44, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mars-v-germany-miss-1924.