TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Maguire v. Dutton

WILLIAM J. MAGUIRE, IN ERROR v. WILLIAM D. DUTTON, TRADING AS WM. D. DUTTON & CO., IN ERROR

Maguire v. Dutton, 25 A. 254 (N.J. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 15, 1892
Judges
Garrison
Citations
25 A. 25454 N.J.L. 59725 Vroom 5971892 N.J. LEXIS 12
Headnotes
.In actions of replevin, the measure of damage is the real value of the chattel at the time the tortious possession of the defendant began, with damages for its unlawful detention.
Summary
On error to the Supreme Court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Garrison

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

*598 The opinion of the court was delivered by Garrison, J.

This is an action of replevin brought by plaintiffs, who claim to have leased, in 1887, to one John C. Bacon, a piano, that, in 1890, is found in the possession of William J. Maguire, the defendant. At the close of plaintiff’s case a non-suit was asked by the defendant upon the-ground, amongst others, that there was no proof of the value-of the piano.

This motion was denied and a judgment rendered for $250,. that being the sum at which Bacon, under his lease with the-plaintiffs, might have purchased the piano in 1889; had he, during each of the twenty-three months next succeeding June 15th, 1887, complied with the terms of the written contract.. In this judgment there is obvious error. The measure of damages that a plaintiff may recover in an action of replevinis the real value of the chattel at the time the tortious possession of the defendant began, with damages for its unlawful detention. West et at. v. Caldwell, 3 Zab. 736.

In the present case, and as to this defendant, the value of the piano nearly three years before he is alleged to have acquired it is of no legal significance. Still less so when that valuation was one established by two parties to a written lease-to which the defendant was in no wise a privy. Upon this-point we reverse the judgment below without expressing any opinion upon the other errors assigned or upon the jurisdictional question apparent on the face of the record.

For affirmance — None.

For reversal — The Chancellor, Chief Justice, Depue,. Dixon, Garrison, Mag-ie, Reed, Scudder, Van Syckel,.' Werts, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Smith, Whitaker. 15

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 11911: 11915: 11920: 21921: 11924: 219092026peak 1920 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Ginter v. Ginter101 P. 634 (Kan. 1909)
  2. McKeand v. Jones185 Mich. 97 (1915)
  3. Kindt v. Parmenter1921 OK 330, 200 P. 706
  4. In re Will of Swartz1920 OK 255, 192 P. 203
  5. In re Estate of Hart1924 OK 1149, 233 P. 227
  6. Gleason v. Jones79 Okla. 191 (1920)

Most recent

  1. In re Estate of Hart1924 OK 1149, 233 P. 227
  2. Turner v. Porter106 Okla. 180 (1924)
  3. Kindt v. Parmenter1921 OK 330, 200 P. 706
  4. In re Will of Swartz1920 OK 255, 192 P. 203
  5. Gleason v. Jones79 Okla. 191 (1920)
  6. McKeand v. Jones185 Mich. 97 (1915)

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