Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

3 D.C. 55

Smith v. Hazel

Decided December 15, 1826

Debt on replevin bond. The plaintiff in replevin was non-prossed, and the defendant had judgment for a return. The writ of retorno habendo was returned “ elongataP Hazel, offered to give evidence, in mitigation of damages, that the property of the goods reple-vied was in him; and cited McDaniel v. Fish, in this Court, at December Term, 1818, (2 Cranch, C. C. 160,) and Wilson v. Slye.

Decided 1826-12-15

¶1The Court, at first, thought that the evidence was not admissible, because it was matter of defence to the original suit, of which the plaintiff in that suit might have availed himself, but did not, and that the defendant could not give evidence that the plaintiff in this suit ought not to have had judgment in the replevin; but, upon reconsideration, permitted the defendant to give the evidence, reserving a right to the plaintiff to move for a new trial, on the ground of admitting improper evidence.

¶2Verdict for the plaintiff, $200 damages.

/3/dc/55 · .json · Public domain