Kern v. Woolsey

Appellate Court of Illinois

Kern v. Woolsey

34 Ill. App. 551, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 301

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 4, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 Ill. App. 551 (Kern v. Woolsey) 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

Kern v. Woolsey, 34 Ill. App. 551, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 301 (Ill. Ct. App. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Greer, J.

The - first count in plaintiff’s declaration is replevin, in “ the cepitffi second count in trover. The first plea is responsive to the count in trover.

The second plea of property in Malone (debtor in execution), is responsive to the count in replevin. And the third plea of property in the Domestic Baking Powder Company is also to the same count. There was no plea of justification, or plea to said first count of declaration denying the unlawful taking therein charged. The court found special property in Woolsey, the constable, as to fart of the goods replevied, and awarded a writ of retorno to the defendants for a return of all the goods and chattels in plaintiff’s declaration specified.

Tiie judgment finding special property in the constable was based on no issue in the case, and was erroneous. On the first count there should have been a finding for plaintiff, as the unlawful taking was not denied by any plea to that count. .No writ of retorno would be proper under count in trover. And it was error to order a return of all the goods described in plaintiff’s declaration, when but part were claimed even if the findings of the court were conceded to be right. The judgment is reversed and came remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

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

Greer, J.

The - first count in plaintiff’s declaration is replevin, in “ the cepitffi second count in trover. The first plea is responsive to the count in trover.

The second plea of property in Malone (debtor in execution), is responsive to the count in replevin. And the third plea of property in the Domestic Baking Powder Company is also to the same count. There was no plea of justification, or plea to said first count of declaration denying the unlawful taking therein charged. The court found special property in Woolsey, the constable, as to fart of the goods replevied, and awarded a writ of retorno to the defendants for a return of all the goods and chattels in plaintiff’s declaration specified.

Tiie judgment finding special property in the constable was based on no issue in the case, and was erroneous. On the first count there should have been a finding for plaintiff, as the unlawful taking was not denied by any plea to that count. .No writ of retorno would be proper under count in trover. And it was error to order a return of all the goods described in plaintiff’s declaration, when but part were claimed even if the findings of the court were conceded to be right. The judgment is reversed and came remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Ill. App. 551, 1889 Ill. App. LEXIS 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kern-v-woolsey-illappct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack