Beck v. Ingram

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Beck v. Ingram

64 Ky. 355, 1 Bush 355, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 151

DecidedFebruary 25, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 64 Ky. 355 (Beck v. Ingram) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beck v. Ingram, 64 Ky. 355, 1 Bush 355, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 151 (Ky. Ct. App. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGE ROBERTSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, a citizen of Kentucky, while on his way to his home in Wayne county with a lot of mules bought for his own use, was robbed of them by the appellant, in Tennessee, near the Kentucky l.ine, and brought this action to recover damages for the trespass.

The appellant, in his answer, alleged that, as a Confederate captain he took the mules for the use of the Confederacy ; and also, because he was apprehensive that they were in transitu to the Federal army and for its use. A judgment for reasonable damages was rendered against him, and we see no cause for reversing it, because there was no ground to apprehend that the destination of the mules was contraband; and more materially because, at the time of the seizure and conversion the appellant was a paroled prisoner of the United States, deiiuded of all belligerent rights of capture, and had neither order nor other authority to take the mules for Confederate use.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

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

JUDGE ROBERTSON

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, a citizen of Kentucky, while on his way to his home in Wayne county with a lot of mules bought for his own use, was robbed of them by the appellant, in Tennessee, near the Kentucky l.ine, and brought this action to recover damages for the trespass.

The appellant, in his answer, alleged that, as a Confederate captain he took the mules for the use of the Confederacy ; and also, because he was apprehensive that they were in transitu to the Federal army and for its use. A judgment for reasonable damages was rendered against him, and we see no cause for reversing it, because there was no ground to apprehend that the destination of the mules was contraband; and more materially because, at the time of the seizure and conversion the appellant was a paroled prisoner of the United States, deiiuded of all belligerent rights of capture, and had neither order nor other authority to take the mules for Confederate use.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 Ky. 355, 1 Bush 355, 1866 Ky. LEXIS 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-ingram-kyctapp-1866.