TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Moriarty v. Stofferan

Ambrose Moriarty v. Paul Stofferan

Moriarty v. Stofferan, 89 Ill. 528 (1878)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Illinois Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 15, 1878
Judges
Dickey
Citations
89 Ill. 528
Syllabus
1. Replevin—plaintiff must have right of possession. In an action of replevin, it is essential that the plaintiff should be entitled to the possession of the property at the time when the writ is sued out. 2. Where a party is induced to sell property and take a note of the purchaser, and another, upon false and fraudulent representations as to the amount of property owned by the security, he may rescind the contract by offering to return the note, but he can not maintain replevin for the property sold until he does do so, and demands the property.
Summary
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Iroquois county; the Hon. N. J. Pillsbury, Judge, presiding. This was an action of replevin, brought by Stofferan against Moriarty. The property claimed consisted of a pair of mules and a mare. Stofferan sold the property to Moriarty at the price of $310, on a credit' of one year, and to secure the payment of the price accepted a promissory note, signed by Moriarty and McInerny. The plaintiff claimed, upon the trial, that in negotiating the trade, Moriarty and McInerny assured him that McInerny was the owner of eighty acres of laud, free from incumbrance. The defendant claimed that the representation made on that subject was simply that he was the owner of eighty acres of land. The proof showed that McInerny owned eighty acres of land, but it was subject to an incumbrance of a mortgage for $1000, and the only material fact in dispute between the parties on the trial was, whether the representation was or was not made by Moriarty and Mclnerny that the land was free from incumbrance. The plaintiff, upon ascertaining, as he supposed, that he had been deceived in relation to the responsibility of McInerny, proceeded immediately to sue out a writ of replevin, and did not demand a return of the property or offer to rescind the contract and surrender the note, until after the writ of replevin was issued and the sheriff had gone to the residence of Moriarty for the purpose of seizing the property. Stofferan recovered in the circuit court, and Moriarty appeals to this court.

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

Opinion of the Court — Dickey

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

Mr. Justice Dickey delivered the opinion of the Court:

In an action of replevin it is essential that the plaintiff should be entitled to the possession of the property at the time when the writ is sued out. Assuming the plaintiff’s version of the facts to be true, he was not entitled to the possession of this property at' the time that he commenced his action. If his allegations be true, he undoubtedly had a right to rescind the contract by offering to return the note. He, however, was not in a condition to bring his action until he had offered to return the note and demanded the property.

The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1881–1882: 11885–1886: 21887–1888: 21889–1890: 11891–1892: 11893–1894: 11895–1896: 11907–1908: 11923–1924: 118812026peak 1885 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Farwell v. Hanchett19 Ill. App. 620 (1886)
  2. Cahn v. Reid18 Mo. App. 115 (1885)
  3. Girard v. St. Louis Car Wheel Co.25 L.R.A. 514 (Mo. 1894) · Concurrence
  4. Thompson v. Peck1 L.R.A. 201 (Ind. 1888)
  5. Joslin v. Noret194 N.W. 983 (Mich. 1923)
  6. Farwell v. Hanchett11 N.E. 875 (Ill. 1887)

Most recent

  1. Joslin v. Noret194 N.W. 983 (Mich. 1923)
  2. Kingman-Moore Implement Co. v. Ellis103 S.W. 127 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907)
  3. Wm. S. Merrill Chemical Co. v. Nickells66 Mo. App. 678 (1896)
  4. Girard v. St. Louis Car Wheel Co.25 L.R.A. 514 (Mo. 1894) · Concurrence
  5. Girard v. St. Louis Car-Wheel Co.46 Mo. App. 79 (1891)
  6. Pangborn v. Ruemenapp42 N.W. 78 (Mich. 1889)

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