Pistorius v. Swarthout

34 N.W. 547, 67 Mich. 186, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 789
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 13, 1887
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 N.W. 547 (Pistorius v. Swarthout) 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
Pistorius v. Swarthout, 34 N.W. 547, 67 Mich. 186, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 789 (Mich. 1887).

Opinion

Campbell, O. J.

In this case the plaintiff sued out a replevin for beasts distrained, making the proper affidavit before a justice. The animals were delivered to plaintiff on a bond which was given before appraisal. Motions were twice made before the justice to quash, and denied. Judgment was there entered upon proofs on default, and appealed by special and general appeal. In the circuit court, the appeal on special grounds, which included jurisdictional questions, [187]*187was overruled, and defendants pleaded generally, and plaintiff recovered judgment for nominal damages, and costs.

The principal question, concerning the jurisdiction of justices in replevin for beasts distrained, is settled by Act No. 188, Laws of 1879, which very clearly gives the jurisdiction. "Whether this law removes the qualification concerning the time of giving the replevin bond, so as to allow it only after appraisal, is a question of some importance, if it properly arises now. But the defendants, having pleaded issuably in the circuit court after their special appeal had been decided, and having gone to trial on the merits, waived any objection going to the regularity of the proceedings, if there was any jurisdiction at all.

The jury having found in favor of plaintiff, so that there was no right in defendants, and the plaintiff being entitled to the possession, the irregularity of the bond could in no way prejudice defendants after such judgment, and ought not to affect the judgment. It, if error at all, was an error that is not prejudicial.

The j udgment should be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Dillon v. Howe
57 N.W. 102 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Moore v. Lewis
43 N.W. 11 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1889)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 N.W. 547, 67 Mich. 186, 1887 Mich. LEXIS 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pistorius-v-swarthout-mich-1887.