Woods v. Green
Ohio Supreme Court
^Replevin for a sorrel horse. Plea, non detinet, with notice [504 that the property in the horse is in the plaintiff. Fifty witnesses were examined by the parties' — thirty-seven of these for the plaintiff, expressing the opinion that the horse in dispute was'the property of the plaintiff — thirteen of them for the defendant, expressing the opinion the horse was that of the defendant.
Read the full summary
^Replevin for a sorrel horse. Plea, non detinet, with notice [504 that the property in the horse is in the plaintiff. Fifty witnesses were examined by the parties' — thirty-seven of these for the plaintiff, expressing the opinion that the horse in dispute was'the property of the plaintiff — thirteen of them for the defendant, expressing the opinion the horse was that of the defendant. Crediting the witnesses, there were two horses nearly alike— varying in trifling particulars, in spots, color, each with a small white spot on the rump near the tail, about the size of a 12} cent bit. Woods’s…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
to the jury. Woods has taken from the defendant the horse in dispute, by a writ of replevin, and now has it. The defendant denies the detention and claims property in herself. There seems no dispute as to the detention — the only question is, as to the property. If you find the property in the plaintiff, your verdict will be that the defendant is guilty, and you will assess adequate damages for the detention of the horse. If the property is in the defendant, your verdict will be for her, and then you will find if she had a right to possession on the 6th Sept., 1832, the time the 505] *suit…
2Cited by3 opinions
- North Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. SnowdenSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1862
- Washburn's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1884
- Minnig's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1877