BOLEY
v.
GRISWOLD
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this Montana case involving replevin, the Supreme Court held that a judgment awarding money damages instead of return of property does not require an express finding on its face that the property cannot be returned, as the judgment itself constitutes an implicit finding that return was impossible. The Court affirmed the judgment, applying the presumption that trial courts act correctly absent evidence to the contrary.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion óf the court.
It is true.that' under the Civil Practice Act of Montana there can be no judgment for the value if there can be a delivery of the property-, but it is'not true that a judgment is necessarily erroneous if'the alternative is not expressed upon its face. The court must be satisfied that the delivery cannot be made before it can adjudge absolutely the payment of money.' But, if so satisfied, it may so adjudge. A special-finding to that ' effect is not' necessary. An absolute judgment for the money is equivalent to such a finding.
In one part of this record it appears that the verdict was for this return of the property, .or, in case that could not be made, for $3000, the value, a,nd $800 ' damages' for the detention. The judgment was for the money, and the presumption is, in the absence of anything in the record to the contrary, that before it was rendered the court had become judicially satisfied-that the property could not be returned. In a court of error every presumption is in favor of the validity of the judgment brought under consideration. Error must appear affirmatively before there can be a reversal. •
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ætna Ins. Co. v. Rhodes, 170 F.2d 111 (10th Cir. 1948)…o be presumed but must be affirmatively shown. Morgan v. Sun Oil Co., 5 Cir., 109 F. 2d 178; Junghans v. Junghans, 12 App.D.C. 129, 112 F. 2d 212. Every reasonable assumption is required to be indulged in in favor of the judgment (Boley v. Griswold, 87 U. S. 486, 20 Wall. 486, 22 L.Ed. 375; Fraser v. Doing, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 111, 130 F. 2d 617; Hardt v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Cir., 91 F. 2d 875) ; and where the evidence is not a part of the record it will be presumed that it supports the jury’s verdict and the court’…
-
Oakes v. Lake, 290 U.S. 59 (U.S. 1933)…, it can be appropriately dealt with when it arises. That under'the Idaho statute the court may thus dispose of the case when for any reason a delivery cannot be had, is a proposition which finds abundant support in the-decisions. Boley v. Griswold, 20 Wall. 486; Erreca v. Meyer, 142 Cal. 308, 310; 75 Pac. 826; Claudius v. Aguirre, 89 Cal. 501, 504, et seq.; 26 Pac. 1077; De Thomas v. Witherby, 61 Cal. 92, 97; Donovan v. [*66] Aetna Indemnity Co., 10 Cal. App. 723, 727-729; 103 Pac. 366. In Porter v. David…