Dudley v. McKenzie
Supreme Court of Vermont
Replevin for eighty-four sheep. Heard on the report of a referee, May Term, 1881, Taft, J., presiding. The court rendered judgment that forty-four of the sheep were unlawfully taken and detained by the defendant, and the remainder were lawfully taken and detained, and that neither party recover costs. Plaintiff excepted. The case appears in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Rowell, J.
The referee reports that there was no proof before him that the defendant suffered any damage or incurred any cost by reason of the sheep getting into his pasture. Nominal damages, however, will be presumed, for the law implies a damage from every injury. The question arises, therefore, Does the right of distress for damage feasant exist when no actual damage is committed by the beasts distrained ? This question seems not to have been decided in this State, and turns on the construction to be given to our statute.
*686Distraining cattle for damage…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Porter v. AldrichSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- Dunton v. ReedSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1840
3Cited by4 opinions
- Miller v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1907
- Wilbur v. GrossSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1936
- Whittet v. BertschSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1916
- Glinz v. StateNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1941