¶1I dissent from the opinion of my brother Graves respecting the certainty requisite in the plea. If the defense attempted to be made by the plea were valid, the plea sets up- all the facts which it would have been necessary for defendant to prove to make his prima facie case complete; and to require that the pleadings shall be more particular in their statements of fact than the evidence must be, is not only illogical, but for that reason is calculated to entrap parties in making up their issues, and is therefore mischievous.
41 Mich. 576
Carew v. Matthews
Decided October 14, 1879
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1879-10-14
<p> Replevin for properly seised under federal process. </p> <p>Replevin will lie in a justice’s court to recover property wrongfully seized on federal process by a United States marshal, if its value is below the jurisdictional limit of the federal court and ■ within that of the justice.</p> <p>The value of property as stated in an affidavit for a writ of replevin is presumed to be its true value until otherwise shown in subsequent proceedings.</p> <p>It seems that a plea in abatement to an action of replevin for goods seized on process against a third person is insufficient if it merely alleges that defendant seized them under a certain described execution without also alleging that they were seized as the property of the defendant named therein or as liable to seizure for his debt.</p>
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1928
5 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1879-10-14
View the full empirical analysis of this case →