Walters v. Glats
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall District Court. Wednesday, August 31. Replevin for span of mules, before the issues joined, and under the testimony, the court found the following facts: The parties reside in Marshall county, and plaintiff was the owner of the mules, on the 14th day of Nov., 1868, and still is. These mules were work animals. Defendant was a householder on the day named, and then took up these animals as estrays in his field, in said county.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Marshall District Court. Wednesday, August 31. Replevin for span of mules, before the issues joined, and under the testimony, the court found the following facts: The parties reside in Marshall county, and plaintiff was the owner of the mules, on the 14th day of Nov., 1868, and still is. These mules were work animals. Defendant was a householder on the day named, and then took up these animals as estrays in his field, in said county. This field was not enclosed by a lawful fence. The mules, with other animals, had run upon the adjacent lands, more or less, during the preceding'…
1Opinion of the Court
Wright. J.
Upon the facts found, the judgment should have been for plaintiff.
As defendant did not have a lawful fence, there can be no pretence that he could distrain the mules as trespassing animals. Indeed, the judgment of the court below, is not placed upon this ground, but upon defendant’s right to hold the property, under the estray laws of the state. The statute is, that an unbroken animal shall not be taken between the first days of May and Nov., unless found within the lawful enclosure of the party taking it up, and that if any horse, mule, &c., liable to be taken up, come upon any…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Yraceburn v. CapeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Roberts v. BarnesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Kinney v. RoeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1886
- Hall v. GildersleeveSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1873