TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Baer v. Martin

Baer v. Martin, 2 Ind. 229 (1850)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 28, 1850
Judges
Blackford
Citations
2 Ind. 229
Headnotes
To sustain an action of replevin it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove either an unlawful tailing or an unlawful detainer.
Summary
ERROR to the Carroll Circuit 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 — Blackford

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

Blackford, J.

This was an action of replevin brought by John Martin against Michael Baer, before a justice of the peace. Judgment by the justice for the defendant.

The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court.

The cause was submitted to the Court without a jury. Judgment for the plaintiff.

The cause of action filed was for the unlawful taking and the unlawful detainer of a certain grey mare of the value of 50 dollars.

The defendant was entitled to the general issue; the cause having originated before a justice of the peace.

The record contains all the evidence.

The following are the material facts proved:

One William Martin recovered a judgment for 25 dollars, before a justice of the peace, against the. present defendant, Baer. The mare now in dispute was sold under an execution on that judgment to the present plaintiff, John Martin. There was no evidence as to who had possession of the mare at the time of the sale or at any other time. There was no demand of the mare proved to have been made by the plaintiff on the defendant.

Z. Baird, for the plaintiff. JD. D. Pratt and J. W. Wright, for the defendant.

There can be no doubt but that the judgment for the plaintiff is not supported by the evidence. To enable the plaintiff to recover, it was necessary for him to prove either an unlawful taking or an unlawful detainer. In this case he did neither.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings. Costs here.

How later courts describe this case

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

1879–1880: 21881–1882: 11885–1886: 11975–1976: 118792026peak 1879 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. VanGorder v. Smith99 Ind. 404 (1885)
  2. Lou Leventhal Auto Co., Inc. v. Munns328 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)
  3. Entsminger v. Jackson73 Ind. 144 (1880)
  4. Krug v. Herod69 Ind. 78 (1879)
  5. Entsminger v. Jackson1 Ind. L. Rep. 307 (1881)

Most recent

  1. Lou Leventhal Auto Co., Inc. v. Munns328 N.E.2d 734 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. VanGorder v. Smith99 Ind. 404 (1885)
  3. Entsminger v. Jackson1 Ind. L. Rep. 307 (1881)
  4. Entsminger v. Jackson73 Ind. 144 (1880)
  5. Krug v. Herod69 Ind. 78 (1879)

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