Bates v. Courtwright
| Decision Date | 30 April 1864 |
| Parties | HIRAM BATESv.JOHN W. COURTWRIGHT et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Circuit Court of Lee County.
The case is stated by the court.
Barge & Fouke, for appellant.
James K. Edsall, for appellee.
This is an action of trespass for distraining and carrying away a quantity of growing corn. It appeared in evidence that the appellant distrained the corn for rent which he claimed to be due him from the appellees; and that the proceedings to enforce the distress resulted in their favor. While these proceedings were pending, the appellant caused the corn to be harvested.
The appellant, in mitigation of damages, offered evidence to show that afterwards, and before the commencement of the present suit, a portion of the corn was levied upon and sold under, and the proceeds applied upon, an execution in favor of the appellant against the appellees; and that the residue of it was levied upon, sold under, and the proceeds applied upon, a fee-bill issued by the clerk of the circuit court of Lee county against the appellees, but the evidence was excluded by the court below.
We are of the opinion that the appellant had a right to recoup the expense of harvesting the corn. 8 Viner's Abr., 556-7.
The case under consideration comes within the rule laid down in Stow v. Yarwood, 14 Ill., 424. Where property taken by a trespasser has beeen appropriated to the owner's use by his consent, expressed or implied, justice requires it to apply in reduction of damages. Such consent is always implied, where the property has been legally seized and sold, under the process in favor of a stranger against the owner. 2 Greenl. Ev., sec. 635, note 5, and cases cited in Stow v. Yarwood, ubi supra.
The reason of the rule is, that, the property having been rightfully appropriated in paying debts of the owner, he has received satisfaction for its value, and he ought not again to recover the same value. The rule applies with equal force where the process under which the property was seized and sold is in favor of the trespasser, as where it is in favor of a stranger. The owner receives the value of his property by virtue of legal process, the same in one case that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paxton v. State
......See. Squire v. Hollenbeck, 9 Pick. [Mass.], 551;. Greenfield Bank v. Leavitt, 17 Pick. [Mass.], 1;. Merrill v. How. 24 Me. 126; Bates v. Courtwright, 36 Ill. 518; Tripp v. Grouner, 60. Ill. 474; Nightingale v. Scannell, 18 Cal. 315;. Watson v. Coburn, 35 Neb. 492; Coburn ......
-
Cunnea v. Williams
......395. The lien was not waived by taking a note for the rent: Van Court v. Bushnell, 21 Ill. 626; Cornell v. Lamb, 20 Johns. 405; Bates v. Nellis, 5 Hill, 651. [11 Ill.App. 74] Messrs. JORDAN & STOUGH, Mr. L. G. PEARRE and Mr. A. W. BULKLEY, for appellee; that a statute ...Bates v. Courtwright, 36 Ill. 518. But it is claimed that for all that appears from the record the court may have allowed recoupment, and in order to make ......
-
State ex rel. Armour Packing Co. v. Dickmann
...... plaintiff's property taken under such process was applied. on a just liability of the plaintiff. Stow v. Yarwood, 14 Ill. 424; Bates v. Courtwright, 36. Ill. 518; Trip v. Grouner, 60 Ill. 474; Pierce. v. Benjamin, 31 Mass. 356; Caldwell v. Eaton, 5. Mass. 399; Prescott ......
-
State ex rel. Schreiber v. Dickman and American Bonding Company of Baltimore
...... damaged, and the law will not permit him to recover therefor. Stow v. Yarwood, 14 Ill. (4 Peck.) 424; Bates v. Courtwright, 36 Ill. 518; Tripp v. Grouner, 60. Ill. 474; Prescott v. Wright, 6 Mass. 20; Pierce. v. Benjamin, 31 Mass. (14 Pick.) 356, 25 Am. ......