Carter v. Bedortha
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Trespass quare clausum fregit by May B. Carter against Burritt S. Bedortba. From a judgment for plaintiff for nominal damages only, she brings error. Plaintiff and defendant own and live upon farms about 60 rods apart. No trouble had come between them until that out of which came this suit. Some families of Jews lived near by, Whose children passed plaintiff’s house on their way to and from school. She had a son 17 years old.
Read the full summary
Error to Berrien; Coolidge, J. Trespass quare clausum fregit by May B. Carter against Burritt S. Bedortba. From a judgment for plaintiff for nominal damages only, she brings error. Plaintiff and defendant own and live upon farms about 60 rods apart. No trouble had come between them until that out of which came this suit. Some families of Jews lived near by, Whose children passed plaintiff’s house on their way to and from school. She had a son 17 years old. She kept a large dog, which was accustomed to bark at and attack these children on their way to and from school. Plaintiff had great…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. The plea was the general issue. Defendant was permitted, under objection and exception, to introduce evidence in regard to the treatment of these children by plaintiff’s son and herself. It is urged that these were matters of justification, and inadmissible without notice. They were not admitted for that purpose, but for the purpose of showing the motive of the defendant in going to the plaintiff’s house. The court instructed the jury that the defendant was guilty of trespass. We think the testimony was admissible. The jury had the right to consider the motive of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dyess v. W. W. Clyde & Co.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1942
- Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. State Ex Rel. Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1951
- Rollo v. City Electric Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908