Cruikshank v. Cogswell
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of replevin in the cepit and detinet, brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error to recover a horse. Pleas—1st, Non detinet. 2nd, Property in Wm. D. Briggs. 3rd, Property in defendant. 4th, Property in said Briggs, judgment in favor of John H. Buck, execution issued on the same and placed in the hands of defendant as constable, and levy, by virtue thereof, on the horse in question.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin in the cepit and detinet, brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error to recover a horse. Pleas—1st, Non detinet. 2nd, Property in Wm. D. Briggs. 3rd, Property in defendant. 4th, Property in said Briggs, judgment in favor of John H. Buck, execution issued on the same and placed in the hands of defendant as constable, and levy, by virtue thereof, on the horse in question. To the first plea plaintiff filed general replication, and to the others replied, property in himself and not in Briggs or defendant. Trial had, and verdict for defendant. Motion…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
It is not necessary to investigate the propriety of the action of the court below in supplying that portion of the record which was lost. After appearance and trial, the defendant could not object to any defect in, or even a total want of the writ or the attachment bond.
As between the parties to it, delivery was not essential to the completion of the sale of the horse. It was competent for the parties to agree at the time of the sale that the seller might retain possession of the horse as long as he pleased, and upon any consideration which suited him, and no one but a creditor of, or…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Webster v. NicholsIllinois Supreme Court · 1882
- McIntosh v. SmileyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1888
- Western Mining Supply Co. v. QuinnMontana Supreme Court · 1909
- Gilbert v. DeckerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1885
- American Banking Co. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1927