Alderman v. Manchester

• Decision Date: 27 June 1882
• Citation: 49 Mich. 48,12 N.W. 905
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: ALDERMAN v. MANCHESTER.

12 N.W. 905

49 Mich. 48

ALDERMAN v. MANCHESTER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 27, 1882

Where in an action of replevin, the jury returned the verdict that plaintiff was the general owner and that defendant had a lien to the amount of his levy, held, insufficient to snstain the judgment.

Error to Ionia.

A.B. Morse and A.A. Ellis, for plaintiff and appellant.

Mitchell Bell & McGarry, for defendant.

CAMPBELL J.

Alderman replevied a horse which defendant had levied on as the property of one Derrick. The whole controversy before the jury turned on the ownership of Alderman at the time of the alleged levy and taking. If he did not own the horse then the animal belonged to Derrick, and it was not claimed or pretended that Alderman got any new rights. The jury found that Alderman was general owner and that Manchester had a lien to the amount of his levy. Under the charge this verdict is insensible. One or the other of these findings must be wrong. There may perhaps be cases like Moore v Vrooman, 32 Mich. 526, where such a verdict can be sustained because no conflicting interests are shown to have appeared, but never where such a conflict of interest exists as appears here. The verdict sets out no other facts which could throw light upon it.

The statute provides that when either party has a lien on or special property in the goods and chattels replevied, and is not the general owner, that fact may be shown, and the finding shall be in accordance with such fact, "and the court shall thereupon render such judgment as shall be just between the parties." This means that the verdict shall be special and full enough to enable the trial court to render a proper judgment. If Alderman was general owner, and defendant had nevertheless a special lien, it could only be because Alderman held the same title which was levied on. If he was not the general owner, then defendant was entitled to a return, and there was no necessity or propriety in determining the amount of his lien, unless he should waive a return and have the value determined, which does not seem to have been done here. The jury have not found that the property was worth the amount of the special lien or any other sum, and therefore there is nothing on which to base a personal judgment for that sum against Alderman, which was done here. They have not rendered such a verdict as enables the court to know what justice requires.

The judgment must...