Becker v. Dupree
| Decision Date | 30 September 1874 |
| Citation | 75 Ill. 167,1874 WL 9210 |
| Parties | FREDERICK BECKERv.MARCUS W. DUPREE. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOSIAH MCROBERTS, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of trespass, by Marcus W. Dupree against Frederick Becker and Benjamin Silts. The facts of the case are stated in the opinion of the court. A verdict and judgment were had for one thousand sixty-six dollars and sixty-three cents, in favor of the plaintiff, from which judgment Becker appealed.
Mr. THOMAS SHIRLEY, for the appellant.
Mr. JOHN LYLE KING, for the appellee.
It appears that appellant, Becker, leased a business house to one Penneberger who afterwards underlet half of it to appellee. He went into possession and occupied his half from the 18th of June until the 16th of July. On the latter date Penneberger owed two months' rent under his lease, and Becker issued a landlord's warrant, which he placed in the hands of Kline, to distrain the goods of Penneberger. In doing so he took a portion of the goods of appellee. On discovering this fact, Becker had them returned and placed in the store the next morning, and Penneberger says that appellee afterwards got them. But he ceased to do business in that store after the distraint was made. He testified the goods were worth seven hundred and fifty-two dollars, when they were placed in the store. Penneberger testified that some of the goods were damaged.
Appellee sued appellant and Silts in an action of trespass de bonis asportatis. A trial was had by the court and a jury, who found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for one thousand and sixty-six dollars and sixty-eight cents. A motion for a new trial was entered, but overruled by the court, and a judgment rendered on the verdict. Thereupon Becker has appealed to this court and assigned errors on the record.
If appellant is at all liable, it must be on the ground that he directly controlled, or at least participated in the trespass, or had knowingly approved and ratified it after it was done. The evidence seems to be slight that appellant in any way directed or intended that appellee's goods should be seized under the distress warrant. If he simply issued the warrant and directed the bailiff to seize the property of his tenant, and in executing the writ, he seized a portion of appellee's property, the landlord could not be held a trespasser, but the wrong would be wholly that of the officer or his assistants, in making the levy. The presumption would be that the landlord only directed him to levy on the property of the tenant, to limit his power to his legal duty which is expressed in the warrant, and that was, to seize the goods and chattels of the tenant liable to distraint, sufficient to satisfy the rent due.
Or, if the landlord, after the property of a stranger is seized, were to ratify the act of taking the property, and retain it, and after being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pegram v. Stortz
... ... 261; ... Reno v. Wilson , 49 Ill. 95; ... Roth v. Smith , 54 Ill. 431; ... Farwell v. Warren , 70 Ill. 28; ... Becker v. Dupree , ... 75 Ill ... 167; Drohn v. Brewer , 77 Ill. 280; ... Foote v. Nichols , 28 Ill. 486; ... Railroad ... ...
-
Tuyl v. Riner
...I. R. R. Co. v. Baker, 73 Ill. 316; Cutler v. Smith, 57 Ill. 252; Farwell v. Warren, 51 Ill. 467; Smalley v. Smalley, 81 Ill. 70; Becker v. Dupree, 75 Ill. 167; Johnson v. Camp, 51 Ill. 219; Best v. Allen, 30 Ill. 30; Ously v. Hardin, 23 Ill. 403; Bull v. Griswold, 19 Ill. 631; Sherman v. D......
- Pine Bluff & Arkansas River Railway Company v. Washington
-
Lake Shore Ry Co v. Prentice
...118; Boulard v. Calhoun, 13 La. Ann. 445; Detroit Daily Post Co. v. McArthur, 16 Mich. 447; Grund v. Van Vleek, 69 Ill. 478, 481; Becker v. Dupree, 75 Ill. 167; Rosenkrans v. Barker, 115 Ill. 331, 3 N. E. Rep. 93; Kirksey v. Jones, 7 Ala. 622, 629; Pollock v. Gantt, 69 Ala. 373, 379; Evisto......