Wells v. McClenning

Illinois Supreme Court

Wells v. McClenning

23 Ill. 409

DecidedJanuary 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Ill. 409 (Wells v. McClenning) 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

Wells v. McClenning, 23 Ill. 409 (Ill. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Breese, J.

We are well satisfied on reason and authority, that the judgment and recovery in the first action of replevin is an estoppel in this action. The plaintiff, in that action, alleged property in himself, and an unlawful detention by the defendant. By pleading non detinet only, he admitted, on the record, the property was in the plaintiff, and he can never again, in any court, call in question that fact. It was a material averment, and if the property was not his, but the defendant’s, he should have made then and there the issue. It is now too late. o

The demurrer was properly overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Breese, J.

We are well satisfied on reason and authority, that the judgment and recovery in the first action of replevin is an estoppel in this action. The plaintiff, in that action, alleged property in himself, and an unlawful detention by the defendant. By pleading non detinet only, he admitted, on the record, the property was in the plaintiff, and he can never again, in any court, call in question that fact. It was a material averment, and if the property was not his, but the defendant’s, he should have made then and there the issue. It is now too late. o

The demurrer was properly overruled, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Ill. 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-v-mcclenning-ill-1860.