Bourk v. Riggs

Illinois Supreme Court

Bourk v. Riggs

38 Ill. 320

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1865

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 38 Ill. 320 (Bourk v. Riggs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bourk v. Riggs, 38 Ill. 320 (Ill. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of replevin brought before a justice of the peace for the recovery of a heifer. The cause was removed to the Circuit Court by appeal, where a trial was had, when the jury returned a verdict, simply, that they found for the defendant. The court caused the verdict to be entered in this form: “We find the defendant not guilty.” Upon being inquired of by the court, the jury replied, that their verdict was based on the want of proof of a demand, and they had not passed upon the title to the property. Whereupon the plaintiff in error moved the court to send the jury back, and require them to pass upon that issue ; but the court overruled the motion, and entered up a judgment on the verdict.

The verdict of not guilty, being responsive to the issues of non c&pit and non detinei, both admitting property in plaintiff in error, it was erroneous for the court to award a writ of retorno habendo. Such a judgment should not be rendered, unless it appears from the issues tried and the verdict returned that plaintiff is not the owner. Vose v. Hart, 12 Ill. 378; Johnson v. Howe, 2 Gilm. 342; Hanford v. Obrecht, (post.) For these errors the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Mr. Chief Justice Walker

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of replevin brought before a justice of the peace for the recovery of a heifer. The cause was removed to the Circuit Court by appeal, where a trial was had, when the jury returned a verdict, simply, that they found for the defendant. The court caused the verdict to be entered in this form: “We find the defendant not guilty.” Upon being inquired of by the court, the jury replied, that their verdict was based on the want of proof of a demand, and they had not passed upon the title to the property. Whereupon the plaintiff in error moved the court to send the jury back, and require them to pass upon that issue ; but the court overruled the motion, and entered up a judgment on the verdict.

The verdict of not guilty, being responsive to the issues of non c&pit and non detinei, both admitting property in plaintiff in error, it was erroneous for the court to award a writ of retorno habendo. Such a judgment should not be rendered, unless it appears from the issues tried and the verdict returned that plaintiff is not the owner. Vose v. Hart, 12 Ill. 378; Johnson v. Howe, 2 Gilm. 342; Hanford v. Obrecht, (post.) For these errors the judgment of the court below must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Ill. 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bourk-v-riggs-ill-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack