TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Dooley v. Eilbert

Thomas Dooley v. William Eilbert

Dooley v. Eilbert, 11 N.W. 408 (Mich. 1882)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 25, 1882
Citations
11 N.W. 40847 Mich. 6151882 Mich. LEXIS 715
Disposition
Judgment modified.
Headnotes
Verbal sales — Judgment on certiorari — Becord, on error. There can be no recovery on a vernal sale of goods exceeding $50 in value unless something has been paid or some part of the goods delivered. _ Comp. L. §4699. Where the result in the circuit court on cei'tiorm'i is the same as below, the judgment should be a simple affirmance, with or without costs; it is formal error to render a new judgment for damages and. costs, enforcible by execution from the circuit court. On error bringing up a case affirmed on certiorari to a justice, the case is to be heard on the justice’s return alone; the Supreme Court cannot regard a certificate by the county clerk that part of the judgment was collected by justice’s execution before the decision in the circuit. Questions of payment can arise only when it is sought to enforce the judgment.
Summary
Error to "Wayne. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Eilbert sued Dooley in justice’s court for goods sold and delivered and recovered judgment for ninety dollars and costs. On certiorari from the circuit court the only question worthy of notice was whether the justice had any evidence of a valid sale of the goods. The sale was verbal, and nothing had been paid upon it. As the price exceeded fifty. dollars, it was therefore necessary to show that the goods or some portion of them had been delivered. The circuit judge was of opinion there was some evidence tending to show delivery; and we are inclined to agree in this view.

The circuit court erred, however, in the manner of entering up judgment. Instead of a simple affirmance, which should have been entered, the court ordered new judgment for damages and.costs to be entered, to be enforced by execution from that court. But this was a mere formal error, and could have wronged no one.

Plaintiff in error produces here the certificate of the county clerk that it was shown in the circuit court that the judgment had been in part collected by execution from the justice’s court before the case was decided in the circuit; but the paper has no business here. The case on cerUorari is to be heard and decided exclusively on the justice’s return; and questions of payment can only arise when the judgment is sought to be enforced.

The judgment of the circuit court will be so far modified as to make it a simple affirmance of the judgment of the justice with costs. Under the circumstances no costs will be awarded in this court.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1890: 11898: 11909: 118902026peak 1890 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Eldridge v. Hubbell77 N.W. 631 (Mich. 1898)
  2. Henika v. Brown119 N.W. 1083 (Mich. 1909)
  3. Rodman v. Clark45 N.W. 1001 (Mich. 1890)

Most recent

  1. Henika v. Brown119 N.W. 1083 (Mich. 1909)
  2. Eldridge v. Hubbell77 N.W. 631 (Mich. 1898)
  3. Rodman v. Clark45 N.W. 1001 (Mich. 1890)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list