Marshall v. Oakes
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the ruling at Jw JPrius of Barrows, J. Replevin. The defendants claimed that the sheep replevied were the property of the female defendant. It was admitted that the defendants were husband and wife. There was evidence tending to show that the wife was the active party in taking the sheep.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the ruling at Jw JPrius of Barrows, J. Replevin. The defendants claimed that the sheep replevied were the property of the female defendant. It was admitted that the defendants were husband and wife. There was evidence tending to show that the wife was the active party in taking the sheep. The defendants excepted to the refusal of the presiding Judge to give the jury the following requested instructions : (1st.) That, if the title to the sheep in question is found by the jury to have been in the plaintiff at the time of the alleged taking and detention; and also find that the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Kent, ,J.
The instructions actually given are not stated in the exceptions. The exceptions are to the refusal of the Judge to give the specific rulings requested. We are only called upon to determine whether the Judge was bound to give the precise instructions requested. These requests were, in substance, that, if the plaintiff had proved property in himself, and a taking and detention by the defendants, yet, if the defendants were husband and wife, and the taking and detention were by them jointly, or by the wife in presence of her husband, that the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Merrill v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Schuler v. HenrySupreme Court of Colorado · 1908
- Merrill v. City of St. LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1882
- Baker v. BraslinSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1889
- Carleton v. HaywoodSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1870
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.