Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

60 Mich. 235

Chilson v. Jennison

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 19, 1886

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1886-02-19

<p>Replevin — Justice’s jurisdiction — Prevailing defendant may recover judgment for value of property, up to five hundred dollar's — Plea in abatement.</p> <p>1. A defendant who prevails in replevin, before a justice, may recover the value of the property replevied, not exceeding five hundred dollars; and the justice has jurisdiction to render a judgment accordingly.</p> <p>2. A plea in abatement is not necessary to destroy the jurisdiction of a justice depending on the amount in controversy, if shown on the trial to be excessive.</p> <p>3. The jurisdiction of a justice, in replevin, attaches according to.the claim in the affidavit; and, having attached, continues to judgment, at least up to five hundred dollars.</p>

Relies on Henderson v. Desborough

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-02-19

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1928

3 state decisions

1018861890190019101920decided

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1Chilson was defendant in a replevin suit commenced before a justice. He pleaded to the jurisdiction that the value of the property claimed was $200, and that, therefore, the justice had no jurisdiction. Issue in fact seems to have been taken on this plea, and testimony heard; but afterwards the justice overruled it, and Chilson refused to plead further. Plaintiff finally recovered judgment Upon special appeal the respondent refused to order a trial upon the plea to the jurisdiction, and mandamus is asked to require -him to do so.

¶2In Henderson v. Desborough, 28 Mich. 170, it was held that when the affidavit in replevin made out a case within a justice’s jurisdiction, the justice could not dismiss the ease upon its appearing on trial that the property was worth more, and not worth $500.

¶3As it has always been held that a justice loses jurisdiction when a case is made out beyond it, that case is authority that where the value falls short of $500, which is the constitutional limit, the jurisdiction continues, and if the defendant prevails he can recover the value of the property if not beyond that sum. In deciding that case the language was somewhat guarded, and did not, in express terms, preclude a plea in abatement. But such was its practical effect, as no such plea was ever necessary to destroy the jurisdiction of a justice depending on the sum in controversy, if shown on the trial to be excessive.

¶4No harm could come to the defendant by such a ruling, for if the case should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction his only valuable remedy would be a judgment of return ; and if $100 is the absolute limit of a justice’s jurisdiction in *237replevin, it might be difficult, without further legislation, to obtain relief if the property cannot be had. Under the rule in the ease cited, the full value can be assessed and judgment given for it. The jurisdiction attaches according to the claim of the affidavit, and, having attached, continues to judgment, at least up to $500, which more than covers this case.

¶5The mandamus is denied.

/60/mich/235 · .json · Public domain