Sherman v. Kilpatrick

25 N.W. 298, 58 Mich. 310, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 520
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 28, 1885
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 25 N.W. 298 (Sherman v. Kilpatrick) 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
Sherman v. Kilpatrick, 25 N.W. 298, 58 Mich. 310, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 520 (Mich. 1885).

Opinion

Sherwood, J.

The parties in this case were neighbors and farmers. The colt of the defendant trespassed upon the land of the plaintiff, and while doing damage thereon was taken up by the plaintiff and impounded in his barn, there being no public pound in the township. This was done on the 11th day of October, 1881. After the impounding, and about seven o’clock in the evening, the plaintiff gave the defendant written notice that he had taken up his colt, and would like to have him come and get it and pay the damages. About six o’clock the next morning the defendant came and took the animal away, against the protest of the [311]*311plaintiff, and without paying any damages, using force to obtain possession of the property.

The plaintiff brought suit before a justice of the peace to recover his damages for the injury done by the colt, and his fees and charges for impounding. On the trial the justice rendered a judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $13.00, made up as follows: $3 actual damages, $10 exemplary damages, and in addition thereto $5.40 costs. The defendant removed the judgment into the circuit court for the county of Leelanaw by certiorari, wherein the judgment was affirmed and the proceedings are now before us for review.

The defendant claims no exemplary damages should have been allowed, and in this he was correct. The plaintiff in his declaration only claims for his actual damages and charges before the rescue; ten dollars were allowed as exemplary damages, which must be deducted from the amount allowed, and with this modification

The judgment will be affirmed without costs.

The other Justices concurred.

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

Related

Smith v. Jones
169 N.W.2d 308 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1969)
Stoll v. Padley
56 N.W. 1042 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1893)
Weaver v. Lammon
28 N.W. 905 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 N.W. 298, 58 Mich. 310, 1885 Mich. LEXIS 520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-kilpatrick-mich-1885.