Detroit Gas Co. v. Moreton Truck & Storage Co.

• Decision Date: 05 January 1897
• Citation: 69 N.W. 659,111 Mich. 401
• Parties: DETROIT GAS CO. v. MORETON TRUCK & STORAGE CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

69 N.W. 659

111 Mich. 401

DETROIT GAS CO. v. MORETON TRUCK & STORAGE CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 5, 1897

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; Robert E. Frazer, Judge.

Action in replevin by the Detroit Gas Company against the Moreton Truck & Storage Company to recover a meter. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Brennan, Donnelly & Van De Mark, for appellant.

Julian G. Dickinson, for appellee.

GRANT J.

Replevin. Property replevied: A gas meter of the value of six or seven dollars. The cause of the suit: The refusal of the defendant to pay a bill for furnishing 60 feet of gas pipe, and labor to connect defendant's stables with plaintiff's gas pipe line. The amount of the bill rendered, according to plaintiff's testimony, was $7.15, according to defendant's testimony, $11.50. The suit was instituted in justice court, and was appealed to the circuit court, and then to this court. The circuit court held that title to the meter was in plaintiff, that the right of possession was in defendant, that plaintiff could not maintain the action refused to award the return of the property, and directed the jury to assess damages to the defendant, which they did at the sum of $55. As long as the law permits such petty suits to be appealed from one court to another till they reach the court of last resort, imposing expense upon litigants and the public, costing many times the amount involved, the courts must determine them upon legal principles, notwithstanding they take time which ought to be devoted to important suits. Two questions are presented: (1) Had plaintiff the right to remove the meter? (2) If it had not that right, what is the measure of damages?

1. In disposing of the first question we shall assume that the defendant is liable for the reasonable cost of putting in the service pipe. It is conceded that the plaintiff owns the meter, and that it may remove the same for nonpayment of gas consumed. It is argued that the company could not remove it for nonpayment of the bill for making the connection and piping the defendant's barn, and the court so instructed the jury. This involves a determination of the contract between the parties. The connection was made, the pipe furnished, and the meter put in for the sole purpose of furnishing gas to the defendant. The agreement to do these things and to furnish gas was part of the same contract. If the company may remove its meter for failure to comply with the one provision of the contract, it is difficult to understand why it may not for failure to comply with the other. The defendant agreed to pay for both. The plaintiff is under no obligation to continue to perform its part of the contract when the defendant has refused compliance. Under the defendant's contention the gas company might pipe a man's building at great expense, for which he agreed to pay, and when it was...