Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

18 Mich. 294

Merrill v. Butler

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 27, 1869

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1869-04-27

This was an- action of replevin. The property was delivered by the sheriff to the plaintiff below. The jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff for $10.00; but there was no assessment of the value of the property, either by the court or jury. Judgment was thereupon entered for plaintiff, with costs. 1.

Relies on Inkster v. Carver

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-04-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1896

2 state decisions

101869187018801890decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Christiancy J.

¶1This was an action of replevin in the Wayne Circuit. The property was seized upon the writ, and delivered to the plaintiff below. It was appraised by appraisers under the writ at $225, and the declaration alleged it to be of the value of five hundred dollars. On the trial, some testimony was given by which it appeared doubtful whether the value exceeded one hundred dollars. The counsel for the defendant below, requested the court to instruct the jury to assess the- value of the property, though they might find a verdict for the plaintiff. This the court declined to do. A verdict was found for the plaintiff, and judgment rendered against the defendant for damages and costs, the court also refusing to assess the value of the property.

¶2Plaintiff in error insists that either the court or the jury should have assessed the value of the property, and if found to be less than one hundred dollars (the limit *298of a justice’s jurisdiction in replevin,) costs should have been awarded to the defendant below, instead of the plaintiff.

¶3It is not denied that the jurisdiction of the - Circuit Court depended on the amount claimed in the declaration — Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich. 484; Strong v. Daniels, 3 Id. 466.

¶4The .statute very clearly gives no authority, either to the court” or jury, to assess the value of the property in a case where the property has been delivered to the plaintiff, and he recovers a verdict for it. And the fourth subdivision of section 5597 Compiled Laws, gives costs to the plaintiff in all actions of replevin, when he recovers a judgment upon verdict, without reference to the value of the property. We see no remedy for the defendant against such costs, without further legislation.

¶5The judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

The other Justices concurred.
/18/mich/294 · .json · Public domain