Dayton v. Fry
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of replevin, brought in the Circuit Court of Greene county. The declaration contained two counts : 1st, for the taking; 2nd, for detaining.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin, brought in the Circuit Court of Greene county. The declaration contained two counts : 1st, for the taking; 2nd, for detaining. The defendant, among other pleas, interposed the following, to wit: And for further plea in this behalf the defendant says that the plaintiff ought not to be admitted to say that the property in the declaration mentioned is the property of him the plaintiff, because he says that on, to wit, on the 13th day of August," in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, the said plaintiff, together with one Matthew J.…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
Was the demurrer to defendant’s fifth plea properly overruled % By that plea it was averred, that plaintiff might not be admitted to say, that the property mentioned in the declaration is his, because he, together with Matthew J. Dayton, entered into a delivery bond to the sheriff for the return of the property to him. That bond is recited at large, in the plea. It recites, that an execution against Matthew J. Dayton had come to the hands of the sheriff, had been levied upon the property therein mentioned, belonging to the defendant in execution.
This plea fails to aver, nor is it admitted in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Glenn v. BrushSupreme Court of Colorado · 1876
- Buchanan v. Scandia Plow Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1895
- Outhouse v. AllenIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Buchanan v. Scandia Plow Co.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1895
- Jones v. HubbardAppellate Court of Illinois · 1885