Case ID: mich_109/html/0546-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Grant, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

KERR v. BENNETT.
    JuSTI0ES 0F THE Peace—Return on Appeal—Pleadings.
    Where a justice’s return to an appeal to the circuit court fails to show whether the pleadings before him were written or verbal, it will be presumed that they were verbal, since the statute (2 How. Stat. § 7008) requires him to give copies of the pleadings, if in writing.
    2. Pleading—Notice of Recoupment—Sufficiency.
    A notice of recoupment which fails to point out in what respect the contract sued upon was broken by the plaintiff is insufficient.
    Error to Wayne; Donovan, J.
    Submitted April 24, 1896.
    Decided June 2, 1896.
    
      Assumpsit by Thomas Kerr against Edmund Bennett for the breach of a special contract. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.
    Reversed.
    
      Hamilton Baluss, for appellant.
    
      George Griffin Prentis, for appellee.
   Grant, J.

This case was commenced in justice’s court. The justice, in his return to the circuit court, stated that—

“Plaintiff declares against the defendant in an action wherefore he claims dami ges for the wrongfully cutting certain timber trees on the lands of the plaintiff, contrary to an agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, and to the damage of the plaintiff $30. . The defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of recoupment.”

Upon the trial in the circuit court the defendant was permitted to introduce evidence under this notice. It is claimed that the notice was insufficient, in that it does not point out in what respect the contract was broken by the plaintiff. The return of the justice does not show, nor does the record state, whether the pleadings were written or verbal. 2 How. Stat. § 7008, requires the justice, in his return, to give copies of the pleadings, if in writing. It must therefore be presumed that they were verbal. It follows that the notice of recoupment wás insufficient, and that .no testimony could be introduced under it. Roethke v. Brewing Co., 33 Mich. 340.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered.

Montgomery, Hooker, and Moore, JJ., concurred. Long, C. J., did not sit.