Case Name: Shaw vs. Hoffman
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1870-07
Citations: 1 Mich. N.P. R. lxix
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shaw vs. Hoffman.
Judges: 
Reporter: The Michigan Nisi Prius Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: lxix–lxx

Head Matter:
Shaw vs. Hoffman.
A tenant for years is authorized, under §4717, C. X., to recover treble damages against his landlord for a wrongful entry, Ac.
A entered and tore down the bam oí B. In an action for the damages the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show what price he had paid for boarding his horses after the destruction of the barn. The declaration alleged no special damages. A motion was made to strike out the testimony^ but it was overruled. Held, that such ruling was erroneous.
Error to Wayne Circuit.

Opinion:
Opinion by
Christianoy, J.
The first question presented is whether the Statute, C. L.., § 4717, authorizes a mere tenant for years to recover treble damages against his landlord far the wrongful and forcible entry, etc., dr whether ,the remedy is intended to be confined to the owner of a freehold interest. This section is substantially copied from the New York statui.es, omitting only the word " disseized." Under the New York statutes, it is well settled that none but the- owner of the freehold was entitled to the remedy. But considering the nature of the injury to be remedied, there seems to be the same grounds of policy and justice for giving the same remedy to a tenant for years, or any other term less than a freeholder, and the term " disseized" seems purposely omitted from our statute, and the remainder of the statute will apply with sufficient accuracy to the lessee for a term of years, and the statute should be construed to be applicable to such oases, as well as to freehold estates.
The next question arises on a motion to strike out the testimony of plaintiff showing what price he paid for the hoarding of his horses after defendant had entered and torn down the barn where they had been kept. No reason for the motion was'given and it is urged that the judgment cannot be reversed for denying it.
Held, that when it appears that the evidence moved to be .•Stricken out, could not, in any view of the case, be pertinent to the issue, the reasons for the motion must be sufficiently apparent, -and cannot be overruled without calling upon counsel to state the reasons for the motion, and the neglect of the counsel to do so under such a call. The ground of error relied upon is, that no special damages are alleged, and the expense of boarding the horses at another stable are not the necessary consequence of the trespass complained of, and should have been specially alleged. This objection is well taken. The declaration gives no notice of such a claim. It mentions no horses, and states no purpose for which the barn was used, nor any business of plaintiff connected -therewith. The expense of boarding horses is not generallythe necessary result of ejecting from a barn, and whether they become in any case the necessary result, must depend upon other .facts not stated in the ddblaration.
Judgment below reversed, and a new trial ordered.