Hanford v. Obrecht

Illinois Supreme Court

Hanford v. Obrecht

38 Ill. 493

CourtIllinois Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1865

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 38 Ill. 493 (Hanford v. Obrecht) 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

Hanford v. Obrecht, 38 Ill. 493 (Ill. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of replevin. The defendant pleaded four pleas : 1st. non cepit; 2d. property in himself; 3d. property in one Zalmon Hanford, and the 4th. justified the taking by the defendant, as sheriff, under an execution against Zalmon Hanford. Issues were made up on these pleas, and the jury on the trial merely found a verdict of not guilty, upon which the court rendered judgment and ordered a return of the property.

In Vose v. Hart, 12 Ill. 378, the court held that where there was only a plea of non cepit, and a verdict of not guilty, it was error to award a retorno habendo. That case is decisive of this. It is impossible to apply the finding of the jury to any issue except that made under the plea of non cepit, and the case is in no wise distinguishable, in principle, from the one just cited. There being no other issue found, the record presents the same question that it would had no other plea been pleaded.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

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

Mr. Justice Lawrence

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of replevin. The defendant pleaded four pleas : 1st. non cepit; 2d. property in himself; 3d. property in one Zalmon Hanford, and the 4th. justified the taking by the defendant, as sheriff, under an execution against Zalmon Hanford. Issues were made up on these pleas, and the jury on the trial merely found a verdict of not guilty, upon which the court rendered judgment and ordered a return of the property.

In Vose v. Hart, 12 Ill. 378, the court held that where there was only a plea of non cepit, and a verdict of not guilty, it was error to award a retorno habendo. That case is decisive of this. It is impossible to apply the finding of the jury to any issue except that made under the plea of non cepit, and the case is in no wise distinguishable, in principle, from the one just cited. There being no other issue found, the record presents the same question that it would had no other plea been pleaded.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 Ill. 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanford-v-obrecht-ill-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack