Agnew v. Wilson

Appellate Court of Illinois

Agnew v. Wilson

46 Ill. App. 205, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 540

DecidedApril 11, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 46 Ill. App. 205 (Agnew v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agnew v. Wilson, 46 Ill. App. 205, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 540 (Ill. Ct. App. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wall.

This was replevin by the appellee against appellant for a mare levied upon by appellant as constable, by virtue of an execution in his hands against one Edwin Wilson, a son of the appellee.

The plaintiff recovered in the Circuit Court. It appeared that the animal belonged to the plaintiff and was in the possession of his two sons, Samuel and Edwin, who were operating his farm. At the time of the levy Edwin was driving the mare, but the constable had been informed before that she was the plaintiff’s property. He proposed a trade, and after having obtained from Edwin a statement implying that he owned the horse, he said he would make the levy, whereupon he was told that the plaintiff was the owner. ■ nevertheless he levied, and this suit followed. We think the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover.

Ho error appears in the record and the judgment will be affirmed.

Jxodgment a/ffw-med.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Wall.

This was replevin by the appellee against appellant for a mare levied upon by appellant as constable, by virtue of an execution in his hands against one Edwin Wilson, a son of the appellee.

The plaintiff recovered in the Circuit Court. It appeared that the animal belonged to the plaintiff and was in the possession of his two sons, Samuel and Edwin, who were operating his farm. At the time of the levy Edwin was driving the mare, but the constable had been informed before that she was the plaintiff’s property. He proposed a trade, and after having obtained from Edwin a statement implying that he owned the horse, he said he would make the levy, whereupon he was told that the plaintiff was the owner. ■ nevertheless he levied, and this suit followed. We think the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover.

Ho error appears in the record and the judgment will be affirmed.

Jxodgment a/ffw-med.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Ill. App. 205, 1891 Ill. App. LEXIS 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agnew-v-wilson-illappct-1892.