Holcomb v. Brickley
This text of 12 R.I. 255 (Holcomb v. Brickley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Tbe plaintiff sues tbe defendant in trover for tbe conversion of a piano. Tbe defendant pleads in bar a judgment for costs recovered against himself on submission in an action of replevin for tbe piano, wherein tbe parties were reversed and tbe plea was non cepit only. Tbe plaintiff demurs'. Tbe defendant contends that inasmuch as be alleged himself to be tbe owner of the piano in tbe action of replevin and tbe plaintiff did not traverse tbe allegation, but impliedly admitted it by pleading simply non cepit, be cannot now claim to be tbe owner himself, but is estopped by tbe former judgment. We think the argument is invalid, for the reason that tbe allegation so impliedly admitted did not pass into judgment, tbe judgment having been rendered for and not against tbe plaintiff. To make tbe admission conclusive tbe judgment should have been rendered against him. Boileau v. Rutlin, 2 Exch. Rep. 665, 681; Sweet v. Tuttle, 14 N. Y. 465; Carter v. James, 13 M. & W. *256 137; Hutt v. Morrell, 3 Exch. Rep. 240 ; Buck v. Rhodes, 11 Iowa, 348. Demurrer sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 R.I. 255, 1879 R.I. LEXIS 5, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-brickley-ri-1879.