Brush v. Seguin
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of replevin, by Brush against Seguin and Byrns, for a sorrel mare, value $75. Defendants, Seguin and Byrns, pleaded seven pleas, to wit: Non cepit et non detinuit. Property in defendants. Property in one' Bobert K. Brush. A plea stating a judgment for one Wm.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin, by Brush against Seguin and Byrns, for a sorrel mare, value $75. Defendants, Seguin and Byrns, pleaded seven pleas, to wit: Non cepit et non detinuit. Property in defendants. Property in one' Bobert K. Brush. A plea stating a judgment for one Wm. Godfrey, against Bobert K. Brush and one Ingham, for $346 and costs, at April term, 1858, and an execution to sheriff of Kankakee county, dated April 22,1858 ; and that defendant, Seguin, being such sheriff, by his deputy, one Byrns, levied said execution on said property, on May 20,1858; and that the property was then…
1Opinion of the CourtWalker, J.
At the January term, 1859, a trial was had, which resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendants below. A motion for a new trial was then entered, which was continued, and at the subsequent April term, was allowed. Leave at that time was granted defendants to withdraw their demurrer to plaintiffs’ second and third replications to defendants’ fourth and fifth pleas, which had been overruled at the preceding term. The plaintiff rejoined to the replications. At the September term, 1859, a trial was had, a verdict found for defendants, a motion for a new trial was entered and overruled, and…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Condon v. BrockwayIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
- Richardson v. CassidyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1896
- Cook v. City of MarseillesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1908
- County of Cook v. Calumet & Chicago Canal & Dock Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Cramer v. Illinois Commercial Men's Ass'nIllinois Supreme Court · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.