Case v. Hall
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of trespass. Declaration in usual form— two counts for taking twelve hogs. First plea, general issue.
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass. Declaration in usual form— two counts for taking twelve hogs. First plea, general issue. Second plea as follows : “ And for a further plea in this behalf, the said defendant says, as to the said trespass and conversion of the hogs and swine in the first and second counts of the said plaintiff’s declaration set forth, actio non, because he says, that at the time when, etc., he was lawfully possessed of a certain close, with the appurtenances, situate in the town of Byron, in the county and State aforesaid, and because the hogs and swine in the first and second…
1Opinion of the CourtBreese, J.
There are two manifest objections to the third plea. The first is, the defendant does not allege he was duly elected and qualified to the office under which he justifies the trespass. The rule is, where an officer himself attempts to justify his acts done by virtue of his office, he must allege and prove himself an officer de jure. Schlenker v. Risley, 3 Scam. R. 483. We know of no different rule anywhere, and the reason is, that being the party exercising the office, his right to do so or the evidence of it, is in his own possession and power.
The next objection is, that the plea nowhere…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Bulpit v. MatthewsIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- Wilcox v. HemmingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1883
- Kinder v. GillespieIllinois Supreme Court · 1872
- Outhouse v. AllenIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
- Chicago & E. I. R. R. v. CasazzaAppellate Court of Illinois · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.