Parsons v. Overmire
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of replevin in the detinet. Issues—non detinet; property not plaintiff’s; property defendant’s, not plaintiff’s. Verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial overruled.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin in the detinet. Issues—non detinet; property not plaintiff’s; property defendant’s, not plaintiff’s. Verdict for defendant. Motion for new trial overruled. John Webster, being sworn, testified that he was acquainted with the plaintiff and with James Shinn ; that during the month of February, 1854, the plaintiff and said James Shinn both lived on a farm, in Marshall county, belonging to the witness ; that about the first of February in said year, witness sold to said James Shinn the mare in controversy in this suit; that at the time, said Shinn owned and had the…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
If the testimony of Webster is to be relied upon, then there is no avoiding the conclusion that both the mare and harness in controversy, were pledged by Shinn to Parsons, to secure a debt which the former owed the latter, and that the possession of the articles was delivered by the pledgor to the pledgee, and retained by him, till they were wrongfully taken from him by Gore. This possession is most seriously questioned in the argument for the defendant in error, and requires to be particularly noticed. Both Shinn and Parsons had rented a farm together, which they worked jointly. Shinn owned…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Farson v. GilbertAppellate Court of Illinois · 1904