TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Downing v. Kirkpatrick

T. H. Downing v. John L. Kirkpatrick

Downing v. Kirkpatrick, 125 Ill. App. 542 (1906)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Appellate Court of Illinois · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 20, 1906
Judges
Baume
Citations
125 Ill. App. 5421906 Ill. App. LEXIS 293
Disposition
Affirmed.
Headnotes
1. Propositions of law—effect of failure to present. In a case tried by a court without a jury, a failure to present propositions of law to be passed upon by the court leaves no questions of law to be determined on review except such as may arise upon the rulings upon the evidence and from the pleadings.
Summary
Action of trover. Appeal from the Circuit Court of McDonough County; the Hon. John A. Cray, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1905.

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

Opinion of the Court — Baume

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

Mr. Justice Baume delivered the opinion of the court.

July 29, 1904, Llewellyn Danielson executed a chattel mortgage to appellant upon “one bull, 2 years old,” and certain other personal property to secure the payment of a note for $1300. October 1, 1904, Danielson sold said bull to Harry Knight and on February 2, 1905, appellees purchased said bull at a public sale of Knight’s personal property for $33.25. This is a suit in trover by appellant against appellees to recover the value of the bull. The case was tried by the court without a jury and there was a finding and judgment in favor of appellees.

Ho propositions of law were presented to the court upon the trial of the case, and the only question for our determination on this appeal arises upon the facts.

A preponderance of the evidence in the case tends to show, and the court was warranted in finding, that appellant expressly consented to the sale of the bull by Danielson to Knight; that appellant knew of the purchase of the bull by Knight and Knight’s subsequent possession of the bull; that appellant made no demand upon Knight for the bull or for its purchase price, and that appellant had notice of the public sale of Knight’s - personal property. Upon this state of facts the trial court could not have done otherwise than find the issues for appellees, and the judgment predicated upon such a finding must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1907: 11909: 21984: 119072026peak 1909 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. City of Pekin472 N.E.2d 77 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
  2. Ryan v. Schutt135 Ill. App. 554 (1907)
  3. Keyes v. Estate of Lucy Thornton150 Ill. App. 523 (1909)
  4. Goode ex rel. Goode v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad147 Ill. App. 128 (1909)

Most recent

  1. Brown v. City of Pekin472 N.E.2d 77 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)
  2. Keyes v. Estate of Lucy Thornton150 Ill. App. 523 (1909)
  3. Goode ex rel. Goode v. Mobile & Ohio Railroad147 Ill. App. 128 (1909)
  4. Ryan v. Schutt135 Ill. App. 554 (1907)

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