Marx v. Woodruff

Michigan Supreme Court

Marx v. Woodruff

15 N.W. 510, 50 Mich. 361, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 808

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 18, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 15 N.W. 510 (Marx v. Woodruff) 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

Marx v. Woodruff, 15 N.W. 510, 50 Mich. 361, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 808 (Mich. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

Cooley, J.

Replevin for a cow. The suit was instituted under the general replevin law. It sufficiently appeared, as we think, that the cow was distrained by the defendant damage feasant, and that the plaintiffs had knowledge of [362]*362tlie fact when they sued out the writ. It was decided in Campau v. Konan, 39 Mich. 362, that replevin under such circumstances could only be brought under chapter 214 of the Compiled Laws, which makes special provision for such cases. We adhere to this decision, and the judgment, which was given for the plaintiffs in the circuit court, must be set aside, with costs, and a new trial awarded. The court should have dismissed the case.

We think, however, that as the defendant did not dispute the title of the plaintiffs, but only claimed a lien of six dollars, he would not be entitled, on the suit failing, to any larger recovery besides his costs. This intimation of opinion ought to save further litigation.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Cooley, J.

Replevin for a cow. The suit was instituted under the general replevin law. It sufficiently appeared, as we think, that the cow was distrained by the defendant damage feasant, and that the plaintiffs had knowledge of [362]*362tlie fact when they sued out the writ. It was decided in Campau v. Konan, 39 Mich. 362, that replevin under such circumstances could only be brought under chapter 214 of the Compiled Laws, which makes special provision for such cases. We adhere to this decision, and the judgment, which was given for the plaintiffs in the circuit court, must be set aside, with costs, and a new trial awarded. The court should have dismissed the case.

We think, however, that as the defendant did not dispute the title of the plaintiffs, but only claimed a lien of six dollars, he would not be entitled, on the suit failing, to any larger recovery besides his costs. This intimation of opinion ought to save further litigation.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.W. 510, 50 Mich. 361, 1883 Mich. LEXIS 808, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marx-v-woodruff-mich-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack