Catlin v. Warren
Appellate Court of Illinois
Appeal' from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Rollin S. Williamson, Judge, presiding. This action was replevin in the oepii, brought below by appellees, Warren & Co., against appellant, Catlin, and George By all. The declaration contains one count in replevin, as aforesaid, and one in trover. The defendants pleaded non Gejylt and property in Gatlin, to the count in replevin, and not guilty to that in trover; on which issue was taken.
Read the full summary
Appeal' from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Rollin S. Williamson, Judge, presiding. This action was replevin in the oepii, brought below by appellees, Warren & Co., against appellant, Catlin, and George By all. The declaration contains one count in replevin, as aforesaid, and one in trover. The defendants pleaded non Gejylt and property in Gatlin, to the count in replevin, and not guilty to that in trover; on which issue was taken. There was a trial resulting in a verdict under the issues upon the count in replevin, in favor of plaintiffs, finding property in them and one cent…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAllister, J.
There ivas no preponderance of evidence in this case, showing a demand upon Gatlin for the goods in question before suit brought. The only count in replevin contained in the declaration is in the cepit, and under that count alone the plaintiffs recovered. In Barrett v. Warren, 3 Hill (N. Y.), 348, the court, by Bronson, J., says: “ Replevin in the cajpit will only lie where trespass might have been brought, and the demand and refusal must therefore be laid out of view. The question is not whether there has been a conversion of the property, for which the plaintiff might have brought trover,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mowrey v. WalshNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Thompson v. RoseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1844
- Jennings v. GageIllinois Supreme Court · 1852
- Bidault v. WalesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
- Bidault v. WalesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1855
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Armstrong v. LewisAppellate Court of Illinois · 1890
- Reticker v. Katzenstein & WachtelAppellate Court of Illinois · 1888
- E. P. Reed & Co. v. F. C. Pinney & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1890
- Henry W. King & Co. v. BrownAppellate Court of Illinois · 1887