Inkster v. Carver

Decision Date21 April 1868
Citation16 Mich. 484
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesRobert Inkster v. Elizur R. Carver et al

Heard April 18, 1868 [Syllabus Material]

Case made from Wayne circuit.

This was an action of assumpsit to recover the value of certain sawed lumber.

The declaration was on the common counts, and damages were laid at $ 500.

Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, with costs.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

Judgment reversed, and judgment entered in favor of the plaintiff for $ 53.51 damages, and in favor of the defendants for the costs of both courts.

H. M & W. E. Cheever, for plaintiff:

1. The first question raised denies the jurisdiction of the court to render a judgment for damages, because the amount recovered was within the exclusive jurisdiction of a justice of the peace.

By the constitution circuit courts in all civil cases have "original jurisdiction," and by the statute "original and exclusive jurisdiction," in all cases not otherwise provided: Const., art. 6, § 8; Comp. L., § 3418.

By the constitution justices of the peace have "exclusive jurisdiction," and by the statute "original jurisdiction," in all civil cases "wherein the debt or damages do not exceed one hundred dollars:" Const., art. 6, § 18; Comp. L., § 3653.

This jurisdiction must in each case be determined by the record, and when it depends on amount, by the ad damnum of the writ or declaration: 3 Mich. 466.

The amount claimed in the declaration in this case was $ 500.

2. The second question denies the power of the court to give plaintiff costs.

Costs depend entirely upon the statute, and are not awarded by common law.

By the statute, as it existed previous to the act of 1867, plaintiff was entitled to costs: Comp. L., § 5597, subs. 4 and 5.

By the act of 1867, which repealed § 5597, plaintiff was entitled to costs as the "prevailing party:" Act of 1867, p. 83.

And no costs can now be taxed, excepting as allowed by the latter act. See § 2.

3. But it is insisted that the act of 1867 is unconstitutional and void, because in conflict with section 20, article 4, of the constitution, in that it embraces more than one object.

a. It does not conflict with the spirit of section 20.

The act has but one general object, which means, end or ultimate purpose. That end or purpose was to regulate all the expenses of litigation; both attorney's charges and costs. This object is accomplished by removing all restrictions from the former, and defining and limiting the latter.

The subjects embraced in the law may be various, provided they are necessarily included to perfect the object as expressed in the title: 13 Mich. 494.

b. Neither does it violate the letter of the constitution. Costs are supposed to answer the double purpose of remunerating the prevailing party for his disbursements and punishing the defeated litigant for compelling a resort to judicial proceedings. But the costs as taxed only repay the smaller portion of the expenses of litigation, leaving the greater item of attorney's fees and charges to pay.

Ward & Palmer, for defendants:

1. The court had no jurisdiction in said cause, and could not render judgment on said verdict, for the reason that the amount of the verdict was less than $ 100: Const., art. 6, § 18.

2. If the court below had jurisdiction in this cause, costs should have been allowed the defendants and not the plaintiff, under said verdict.

Before the statute of 1867, there will be no question but that the 4th sub. of § 5597 and § 5600 Compiled Laws gave the defendants costs, and not the plaintiff.

The law of 1867, regulating costs, is unconstitutional.

Article 4, § 20, of the constitution, provides that no law shall embrace more than one object, which shall be expressed in its title.

The act of 1867 (Session Laws of 1867, p. 83) repeals all existing laws, rules, and provisions of law, restricting or controlling the rights of a party to agree with an attorney, solicitor or counselor for his compensation, and to more accurately fix and determine the costs to be allowed to the prevailing parties in suits at law in the circuit court, or rather abrogates all laws relating to champerty, so far as attorneys, solicitors or counselors are concerned, and the penalties attached thereto; and then goes on to provide what attorney's fees may be taxed as a part of the costs in suits at law; one relating to contracts between private individuals and the law regulating them, and the other fixing the amount to be allowed to certain public litigants under certain circumstances under a judgment of a legal tribunal; objects distinct from each other, and previously controlled by entirely separate provisions of law.

Graves, J. Cooley, Ch. J. and Campbell, J. concurred. Christiancy, J. did not sit.

OPINION

Graves J.:

This is an action of assumpsit, commenced by declaration in the court below on the 5th day of January, 1867. The declaration contained the common counts only, and the damages were laid at $ 500. On the 24th of the same month, the plaintiff filed his bill of particulars, and therein claimed $ 236.09; and the defendants pleaded the general issue on the day following. On the 25th of September thereafter, the cause was tried by a jury and the plaintiff submitted evidence tending to show a demand against the defendants for sawing to the amount of $ 217.11. The defendants submitted evidence under the issue tending to prove payments by them upon said demand to a considerable amount, and the jury returned a verdict...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • In re Fourth Judicial District
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • April 24, 1893
    ... ... authorities: Cooley's Con. Lim., 6th Ed., 169-180; ... Sutherland Stat. Con., Secs. 76-100; People v ... Mahanney, 13 Mich. 481; Inkster v. Carver, 16 ... Mich. 484; Mauch Chunk v. McGee, 81 Pa. 433; ... Howland, etc., v. Brown, 13 Bush. (Ky.), 681; ... People v. Ins. Co., 19 ... ...
  • Moody v. Home Owners Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • February 25, 2014
    ...declaration or process, and not the amount found by the court or jury upon trial, must be the test of jurisdiction....” Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich. 484, 487–488 (1868). So, according to these early cases, determining a court's jurisdiction at the outset on the basis of what the plaintiff be......
  • Meisner Law Grp. PC v. Weston Downs Condo. Ass'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 24, 2017
    ...in the plaintiff’s pleadings, not by the sum actually recoverable or that found by the judge or jury on the trial."); Inkster v. Carver , 16 Mich. 484, 487 (1868) (stating that the only practical rule is "that the damages claimed in the declaration or process, and not the amount found by th......
  • Anderson v. Lavelle
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1938
    ...to costs where the amount recovered is such as if sued for would come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the justice court. Inkster v. Carver, 16 Mich. 484;Sparks v. Lord, 198 Mich. 415, 419, 164 N.W. 490;Michaels v. Pinten, 208 Mich. 455, 175 N.W. 465. In Lewis v. Flint & Pere Marquette ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT