Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

35 Mich. 368

Gidday v. Witherspoon

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 9, 1877

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1877-01-09

<p>Replevin: Judgment: Relwn of the properly. A plaintiff in replevin having failed in his suit for the reason that the property was shown by the evidence to have been m his own possession when he sued out his writ, a judgment for the return of the property to the defendant, is held to have been erroneous.</p> <p>Replevin: Special property: Finding: Judgment: Evidence. The statute (Oomp. L. 1871, g 6754) requiring that in replevin where a claim, of lien or special property is set up it shall he specifically found, it is not permissible for tbe court, where it is not so found, to recognize it by the judgment; and especially not where the evidence would not support such a finding 1</p> <p>Execution: Officer: Title to property: Judgment. While an execution fair on its face is sufficient to protect an officer against personal responsibility in serving it, yet when he claims property under it he must show that it was warranted by judgment.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1877-01-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1919

7 state decisions

3018771880189019001910decided

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 →

Cooley, Ch. J.:

¶1This was an action of replevin in which the defendant’s claim to the property, such as it was, was derived exclusively under a levy which he had not so far completed as to take possession of the property. The plaintiff appears to have failed in the suit because the property was in his own possession when he sued out his writ. Thereupon the court proceeded to render judgment against the plaintiff for costs, and also for a return of the property to the defendant in order that he might complete his levy.

¶2This judgment for a return was erroneous. The statute requires a lien or special property to be specially found: Comp. L., § 675J¡.; and where it is not found the court cannot recognize it by the judgment. In this case there was ho evidence on which such a finding could have been had; for the judgment on which the execution issued was not proved. The execution would protect the officer against personal responsibility in serving it, but when he claims property under it, he must show that it was warranted by a judgment. — Beach v. Botsford, 1 Doug. (Mich.), 199.

¶3The judgment for a return of the property must be reversed, with costs of this court. In other respects the judgment will be allowed to stand.

The other justices concurred.
/35/mich/368 · .json · Public domain