Hendrickson v. Walker
| Decision Date | 30 April 1875 |
| Citation | 32 Mich. 68 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Theodore Hendrickson and another v. Joseph S. Walker |
Heard April 22, 1875
Error to Saginaw Circuit.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
William A. Clark, for plaintiffs in error.
D. W C. Gage, for defendant in error.
Walker replevied from plaintiffs in error a considerable amount of personal property, consisting of mill-machinery and fixtures, which it appears they claimed as purchased under an execution issued against one Truman Johnson. All the questions arise upon a special verdict, on which judgment was given for plaintiff below, with fifty dollars damages for detention of the property.
Several questions were argued which we think do not properly arise under the record.
It is objected that the jury cannot find a special verdict unless upon requests given under the statute providing for the submission of specific questions; and that this verdict is imperfect in not containing the technical conclusion commonly inserted, with an alternative finding according as the court may determine as to the law.
The power to find special verdicts is as old as the common-law, and was always competent. It is a very proper and convenient practice when there is no serious difference between parties on the facts, and in such cases it is not unusual for counsel to agree upon the verdict. This is not so common now as formerly, since our laws have enabled courts to pass upon cases without a jury. But a special verdict is no less competent than before. The statute authorizing special questions contemplates that they shall be put in explanation or aid of a general verdict, but it in no way destroys the competency of the former practice. --See Keeler v. Robertson, 27 Mich. 116.
The want of a technical ending is immaterial. When the jury find facts, they find for the party who should prevail on those facts, and he is entitled to judgement.
These findings are confused and prolix. But they show that at the time when defendants below took the property Walker held valid chattel mortgages upon it, on which payments were in default. This entitled him to the possession, unless those mortgages were void as against defendants, or others under whom they acquired rights. Without a finding of invalidating facts, plaintiff must prevail. The findings show no judgment, and no other right to assail the mortgages. The execution is not identified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peasley v. Quinn
...but it in no way destroys the competency of the former practice.--See Keeler v. Robertson, 27 Mich. 116' (Campbell, J., in Hendrickson v. Walker, 32 Mich. 68, 69).4 'Deep below consciousness are other forces, the likes and the dislikes, the predilections and the prejudices, the complex of i......
-
Helwig v. Beckner
...cannot be considered by the court in determining whether the law, on the facts found, is with the plaintiff or defendant. Hendrickson v. Walker, 32 Mich. 68;Railway Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583, 584, 21 N. E. 968; Railroad Co. v. Taft, 2 Ind. App. 237, 242, 28 N. E. 443. There is no finding i......
-
Helwig v. Beckner
... ... 135] be considered by the ... court in determining whether the law, on the facts found, is ... with the plaintiff or defendant. Hendrickson v ... Walker, 32 Mich. 68; Louisville, etc., R. W ... Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583, 584, 21 N.E. 968; ... Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Taft, 2 ... ...
-
O'Neill v. Whitcomb
...delivery. By and under it the mortgagee is, in law, in possession of the chattels." (Jones on Chattel Mortgages, sec. 427; Hendrickson v. Walker, 32 Mich. 68; Macomber Saxton, 28 Mich. 516; Cary v. Hewitt, 26 Mich. 228; Marsh v. Wade, 1 Wash. 538, 20 P. 578.) Section 4520 does not apply to ......