TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Wheeler v. McCorristen

Ozias Wheeler, in Error v. Margaret McCorristen, who sues by her next friend, etc., in Error

Wheeler v. McCorristen, 24 Ill. 42 (1860)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 15, 1860
Judges
Breese
Citations
24 Ill. 42
Headnotes
ERROR TO LEE. An officer who defends in replevin, should set up that he took the property by execution.
Summary
This was an action of replevin, commenced in the Lee Circuit Court, by the defendant in error, against Ozias Wheeler, sheriff of Lee county, and was tried at the June term, A. D. 1858, of said court, before Eustace, Judge, and a jury, and a verdict found for defendant in error, and damages assessed at ten dollars. A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and a bill of exceptions was signed and sealed by the judge, and made part of the record. The declaration consists of one count, alleging that the plaintiff in error, on the 10th day of April, 1857, in Dixon, in Lee county, in a certain dwelling-house there, took a certain pianoforte of said plaintiff, and unjustly detained the same, etc. The defendant filed to this declaration four pleas, viz.: 1st, Noncepit; 2nd, Non detinet; 3rd, Property in defendant; 4th, Property in Patrick M. Kilduff. To the first and second pleas, the plaintiff took issue to the country. To the third and fourth pleas, the plaintiff replied, property in the plaintiff, and tendered an issue to the country. To which defendant added a similiter.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Breese

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Breese, J. There was no execution set up in this case as a justification for taking the property. The jury weighed the evidence as to plaintiff’s right to the property, and if they believed the witness, they could find as they did.

There is nothing in the action of the court on the instructions, to justify our interference. The case of Wheeler v. McCorristen, ante, decides this case.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1861–1862: 11869–1870: 11901–1902: 118612026peak 1861 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mount Carbon Coal & Railroad v. Andrews53 Ill. 176 (1870)
  2. Rust v. Mansfield25 Ill. 336 (1861)
  3. Lang v. Metzger101 Ill. App. 380 (1902)

Most recent

  1. Lang v. Metzger101 Ill. App. 380 (1902)
  2. Mount Carbon Coal & Railroad v. Andrews53 Ill. 176 (1870)
  3. Rust v. Mansfield25 Ill. 336 (1861)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list