Case Name: MASON v. CITY OF MUSKEGON
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1896-05-26
Citations: 109 Mich. 456
Docket Number: 
Parties: MASON v. CITY OF MUSKEGON.
Judges: The other Justices concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 456–457

Head Matter:
MASON v. CITY OF MUSKEGON.
1. Action against Municipality—Jurisdiction.
Under 2 How. Stat. § 6861, providing that all actions against corporations, “except municipal corporations,” may he brought before a justice of the peace in cases where they might be so brought against an individual, an action against a city must be brought in the circuit court.
2. Same—Costs—Nominal Damages.
A prevailing plaintiff in an action brought in the circuit court is entitled to costs, regardless of the amount of the judgment, if that court had exclusive jurisdiction of the cause of action. 2 How. Stat. § 8964, subd. 4.
Error to Muskegon; Russell, J.
Submitted April 22, 1896.
Decided May 26, 1896.
Assumpsit by Lyman G. Mason against the city of Muskegon to recover damages for a trespass upon lands. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
H. J. Hoyt, for appellant.
H L. Delano, for appellee.

Opinion:
Long, O. J.
Plaintiff is the owner of certain lots of land in the city of Muskegon. In 1893 the city, by its authorized agents, took possession of the lots in question,' and laid a sewer -lengthwise through them, claiming that the portions of the lots occupied by the sewer had been dedicated by the plaintiff as a public highway. The plaintiff commenced his action in the circuit court to recover damages for the alleged trespass, insisting that there never had been a dedication of the lots, nor any portion of them, as a public highway. The action was commenced under section 8024, 2 How. Stat., which provides that in actions of trespass the party having the right of action may waive the tort, and sue in assumpsit. Upon a trial in the circuit court upon the merits, the plaintiff had verdict and judgment for 6 cents damages and costs of suit.' The defendant appeals, and assigns as error the ruling of the court in awarding to the plaintiff his costs, upon the ground that a verdict of 6 cents would not carry costs in favor of the plaintiff. That is the only question upon which error is assigned.
Section 6861, 2 How. Stat.', provides:
"All actions against corporations, except municipal corporations, shall be cognizable before a justice of the peace in like manner, and with the like restrictions, as the same are or may be by law before a justice of the peace when brought against an individual."
Under this statute, the plaintiff was compelled to commence his suit in the circuit court, and is therefore entitled to recover his costs. Gurney v. Mayor, etc., of City of St. Clair, 11 Mich. 202.
The judgment must be affirmed.
The other Justices concurred.