Case ID: h-j_2/html/0350-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Faget vs. Braxton.
    If tio« in an action of replevin dbes >iot ath ge damage have beet» sus* taint d, it is fatal.
    iluMleclarntioR in replevin stated the talcing of tbe property to be in Gay-strrct, from tin? «hvollmg-ln'usx* of the phtuttifl— líela, that evidence of the dtlcnoanfs hating taken the property La ¿ay u sufficient without proving that he toolkit írom the dwelling-house of the phúmiíh
    Appeal from Baltimore County Court. Replevin for a cow. The declaration did not allege any damage to havo been sustained by tlie plaint iff, (now appellee.) At the trial the defendant, (the appellant.) prayed the court to direct the jury, that as the plaintiff had declared the taking of the cow in question to have been in Gay-street, lrom the dwelling house of the plaintiff, it was incumbent on him, in order to entitle him to recover, not only to prove that the taking was in Gay-street,, but to prove that it was from the house of the plaintiff in that street. The court, (II. Bidgely, Ch. J.) refused to give this direction, but did direct the jury, that if they should be of opinion that the defendant took the cow of the plaintiff in Gay-street, that was sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    
      Purviance, for the Appellant.
    
      Martin, Winder, and llogers, for the Appellee.
   The Court

concurred with the county court in the «pinion expressed in the, bill of exceptions; but reversed the judgment, because no damages were laid in the declaration.

JUDGMENT REVERSED.