Bull v. Griswold

• Decision Date: 30 April 1858
• Parties: JOHN BULL, Appellant,v.HORACE E. GRISWOLD, Appellee.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

19 Ill. 631
1858 WL 6003 (Ill.)
9 Peck (IL) 631

JOHN BULL, Appellant,
v.
HORACE E. GRISWOLD, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April Term, 1858.

APPEAL FROM WINNEBAGO COUNTY COURT.

Although the question propounded to witness was proper, and his answer should have been permitted by the court, yet, if that witness and other witnesses have testified to the same fact, the case will not be reversed because of the error, in not allowing the witness to answer the particular question.

Growing crops are personal property, and subject to sale by parol agreement.

A lease of land by parol, for a term not exceeding one year, is valid.

Smart money may be awarded in an action of trespass to personal property, if it was willful.

If a trespasser cuts wheat, he cannot deduct from its value his labor while trespassing; but the plaintiff should recover as if himself had performed the whole labor of harvesting.

If standing crops are sold by parol, the possession is in the vendee, until it is time to harvest them.

THIS was an action for trespasses to real estate of appellee, with counts, for cutting and carrying away unthreshed wheat.

The cause was tried at June term, 1857. Verdict for appellee in $760.

Motion for new trial heard and denied.

The facts, necessary to a full understanding of this case, will be found sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.

L. F. WARNER, for Appellant.

LOOP & LATHROP, for Appellee.

CATON, C. J.

We do not feel called upon to review the evidence in this case for the purpose of showing that the jury were warranted in finding the facts as they did. It is sufficient to say, that we do not feel authorized to disturb the verdict on that account. There was one question put by the defendant

[19 Ill. 632]

to the witness, Judd, which, we think, might properly have been answered; but the facts sought to be established by the question were, in a much more satisfactory manner, shown by the same and other witnesses in answer to other questions. The question was this: “What was it worth to cut, harvest, thresh, and take to Pecatonica station, the wheat in controversy?” The plaintiff had previously proved the value of wheat at that station, which was the nearest market, and the only legitimate purpose for which the question could have been allowed, was to show what was the value of the wheat standing in the field, by taking the value of harvesting and marketing the wheat from the price of wheat at the market. This same witness, and several others, did state...