Neece v. Haley
Illinois Supreme Court
Defendant in error filed his declaration below in replevin, claiming property and the right of possession in and to a certain bay mare, which had been duly replevied.
Read the full summary
Defendant in error filed his declaration below in replevin, claiming property and the right of possession in and to a certain bay mare, which had been duly replevied. To this declaration plaintiff in error filed three special pleas: Non detinet; Plea of property in H. N. Haley; That plaintiff in error, on the 6th day of February, 1859, was a constable in and for the county of Greene, Illinois; that on said day, said Neece, as said constable, had in his hands a valid execution, issued on a valid judgment, rendered by a justice of the peace in and for said county, against the goods and chattels…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
A preliminary question is raised here, as to whether the bill of exceptions found in the record is legitimately a part of the record.
It seems the cause was tried September 14th, 1859, and the bill signed and filed September 17th. The exceptions were taken, as the bill shows on its face at the time the decision of the court was pronounced on the several motions. This the bill shows affirmatively; but the bill was not signed at the time the exceptions were taken, and no reason given why it was not; but as the exceptions were taken on the trial, the bill will be considered as having been signed…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Hunnicutt v. PeytonSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Fay v. SlaughterIllinois Supreme Court · 1901
- Strawn Farmers' Elevator Co. v. James E. Bennett & Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1912
- Parish v. HendricksonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1893
- McCormick Harvesting Machine Co. v. BreenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1895