Schenck v. Sithoff

The argument of the appellant’s counsel is confined to the error assigned upon the overruling of tha *487motion for a new trial. The first point made in the brief is, that there is not sufficient evidence of a demand for the property, sought to be recovered by the plaintiff, before the commencement of the action. The plaintiff testified that she left the house of the appellant, her father, where she had been living, in March, 1878, and-at that time left the property with him. A demand was therefore necessary before his possession could be made wrongful. The appellant testified that the plaintiff…