¶1The value of the services of an attorney and counsel for the plaintiff in replevin, or any fees actually paid by the plaintiff to his attorney and counsel in the prosecution of a replevin suit, constitutes no part of the damages contemplated by the statute, and cannot be legally taken into consideration in the assessment of such damages.
2 Mich. 289
Hatch v. Hart
Decided October 15, 1851
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1851-10-15
Replevin. On the trial the plaintiff under objection, was permitted to give evidence of the value of the services of his attorney and counsel in attending to the suit, as a part of the damages he had a right to recover under the provision of the statute, by reason of the unlawful detention of the property.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1851-10-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently September 1981
2 state decisions
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 →