TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Jarrard v. Harper

Abraham Jarrard v. James R. Harper

Jarrard v. Harper, 42 Ill. 457 (1867)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 15, 1867
Judges
Breese
Citations
42 Ill. 457
Syllabus
1. Instructions—when technically wrong—how cured. Where, in an action of replevin, the court instructed the jury: “ If you believe, from the evidence, that the property in question was plaintiff’s, you must find the defendant guilty,”— Held, that, technically, the instruction should have embraced proof of a demand, to justify a verdict for the plaintiff; but, as the record shows proof of a demand before suit brought, and the evidence sustains the verdict, this court will not reverse the judgment. 2. Verdict—where proceedings are ore terms—need not he precisely in form,. In an action of replevin, where the proceedings were ore terms, a verdict that “We, the jury, find the defendant guilty,” although not precisely in form, is equivalent to a finding of the property in the plaintiff.
Summary
Writ or Error to the County Court of Bond county; the Hon. E. Gaskins, Judge, presiding.

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.

Mr. Justice Breese delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of replevin, commenced before a justice of the peace of Bond county, brought by James It. Harper against Abraham Jarrard, and taken by appeal to the County Court, where a verdict and judgment were rendered for Harper, to reverse which the case is brought here by writ of error.

The whole subject of controversy is of trifling amount.

The only question in the case is, as to the propriety of the instruction given by the court. It was this: “ The court instructs the jury, that, if they believe, from the evidence, that the hog in question is plaintiff’s hog, they will find the defendant guilty.”

It is contended by the plaintiff in error, that proof of a demand should have been embraced in the instruction as a necessary element to justify a verdict for the plaintiff, and in this he is no doubt technically correct; but, as there was clear proof of a demand before suit brought, and the evidence sustains the verdict, we cannot reverse the judgment. The form of the verdict is not precisely right, but the proceedings were ore terms, and the finding was equivalent to a finding of property in the plaintiff. The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1868–1869: 11872–1873: 11888–1889: 11898–1899: 118682026peak 1868 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wiggins v. City of Chicago68 Ill. 372 (1873)
  2. Goldstein v. Smith85 Ill. App. 588 (1899)
  3. Sears v. Andrews1 Colo. 88 (1868)
  4. Harris v. McCasland29 Ill. App. 430 (1888)

Most recent

  1. Goldstein v. Smith85 Ill. App. 588 (1899)
  2. Harris v. McCasland29 Ill. App. 430 (1888)
  3. Wiggins v. City of Chicago68 Ill. 372 (1873)
  4. Sears v. Andrews1 Colo. 88 (1868)

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