Farmers & Merchants Bank Co. v. Sparkman

Appellate Court of Illinois

Farmers & Merchants Bank Co. v. Sparkman

151 Ill. App. 175, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 695

DecidedOctober 25, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 151 Ill. App. 175 (Farmers & Merchants Bank Co. v. Sparkman) 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

Farmers & Merchants Bank Co. v. Sparkman, 151 Ill. App. 175, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 695 (Ill. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

In an action of replevin the plaintiff recovered judgment for the possession of two horses and for costs of suit. The defendant appeals.

The material facts disclosed by the record are the following: Robert A. Jones on May 31, 1899, was adjudged insane by a jury in the county court, and committed to the hospital for the insane at Jacksonville. The length of time he remained there, or the circumstances under which he left the hospital, are not clearly disclosed by the record. On October 25, 1907, he executed his note to one Herman, and to secure the payment of the same, gave a chattel mortgage on the horses in controversy. Herman thereafter assigned the note to the plaintiff bank. On November 4, 1907, Jones was again adjudged insane by the county court, and recommitted to the same hospital, and on January 2, 1908, the defendant Sparkman was appointed his conservator. Sparkman qualified as such conservator, and letters were issued to him, and he thereupon took possession of the two horses covered by the chattel mortgage, and retained possession of the same until they were replevied by the plaintiff in this ease.

The evidence further discloses that the defendant was appointed conservator of Jones prior to the institution of the present suit, and that he took and held possession of the horses as such conservator and not in his individual capacity; that he so advised the agent of the plaintiff when demand was made upon him by such agent. We are of opinion that under the circumstances, an action for the recovery of the possession of the horses would not lie against the defendant personally, but that it should have been brought against him as conservator.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is accordingly reversed without remanding.

Reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Puterbaugh

delivered the opinion of the court.

In an action of replevin the plaintiff recovered judgment for the possession of two horses and for costs of suit. The defendant appeals.

The material facts disclosed by the record are the following: Robert A. Jones on May 31, 1899, was adjudged insane by a jury in the county court, and committed to the hospital for the insane at Jacksonville. The length of time he remained there, or the circumstances under which he left the hospital, are not clearly disclosed by the record. On October 25, 1907, he executed his note to one Herman, and to secure the payment of the same, gave a chattel mortgage on the horses in controversy. Herman thereafter assigned the note to the plaintiff bank. On November 4, 1907, Jones was again adjudged insane by the county court, and recommitted to the same hospital, and on January 2, 1908, the defendant Sparkman was appointed his conservator. Sparkman qualified as such conservator, and letters were issued to him, and he thereupon took possession of the two horses covered by the chattel mortgage, and retained possession of the same until they were replevied by the plaintiff in this ease.

The evidence further discloses that the defendant was appointed conservator of Jones prior to the institution of the present suit, and that he took and held possession of the horses as such conservator and not in his individual capacity; that he so advised the agent of the plaintiff when demand was made upon him by such agent. We are of opinion that under the circumstances, an action for the recovery of the possession of the horses would not lie against the defendant personally, but that it should have been brought against him as conservator.

The judgment of the Circuit Court is accordingly reversed without remanding.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 Ill. App. 175, 1909 Ill. App. LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-merchants-bank-co-v-sparkman-illappct-1909.