Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

109 Mich. 546

Kerr v. Bennett

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 2, 1896

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1896-06-02

Assumpsit by Thomas Kerr against Edmund Bennett for the breach of a special contract. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1922

2 state decisions

Relies on Roethke v. Philip Best Brewing Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed · Decided 1896-06-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Grant, J.

¶1This case was commenced in justice’s court. The justice, in his return to the circuit court, stated that—

“Plaintiff declares against the defendant in an action wherefore he claims dami ges for the wrongfully cutting certain timber trees on the lands of the plaintiff, contrary to an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, and to the damage of the plaintiff $30. . The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of recoupment.”

¶2Upon the trial in the circuit court the defendant was permitted to introduce evidence under this notice. It is claimed that the notice was insufficient, in that it does not *547point out in what respect the contract was broken by the plaintiff. The return of the justice does not show, nor does the record state, whether the pleadings were written or verbal. 2 How. Stat. § 7008, requires the justice, in his return, to give copies of the pleadings, if in writing. It must therefore be presumed that they were verbal. It follows that the notice of recoupment wás insufficient, and that .no testimony could be introduced under it. Roethke v. Brewing Co., 33 Mich. 340.

¶3Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.
/109/mich/546 · .json · Public domain