Cunningham v. Hamilton
Illinois Supreme Court
Jesse R. Cunningham filed his declaration in replevin, in the usual form, against William R. Hamilton, for the wrongful detention of one bay horse, the property of the plaintiff, of the value of one hundred dollars. To this declaration the defendant plead: 1st. Non detinet; and plaintiff added similiter. 2nd. That the property was not the property of the plaintiff; and plaintiff added similiter. 3rd. That it was the property of one Milton Williford. 4th.
Read the full summary
Jesse R. Cunningham filed his declaration in replevin, in the usual form, against William R. Hamilton, for the wrongful detention of one bay horse, the property of the plaintiff, of the value of one hundred dollars. To this declaration the defendant plead: 1st. Non detinet; and plaintiff added similiter. 2nd. That the property was not the property of the plaintiff; and plaintiff added similiter. 3rd. That it was the property of one Milton Williford. 4th. That the defendant took the property by virtue of an execution issued on the 21st day of July, 1859, out of the Circuit Court of Hancock…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
We think the errors in this case are well assigned. There seems to us to be an entire absence of facts or circumstances tending to vitiate this transaction, and stamp it with fraud. The chattel mortgage on the horse is of unquestioned validity, and the testimony of his delivery to the mortgagee on the evening before the maturity of the note, and the breach of the condition of the mortgage, and the destruction of the note thereupon, is undisputed. The evidence is clear on these points. On the delivery, the horse became for every purpose, the property of the mortgagee, who could loan him,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. RileyIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- McKey v. PinckardCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1916
- McMahill v. HumesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1886