Bullock v. Narrott

• Decision Date: 30 September 1868
• Citation: 1868 WL 5176,49 Ill. 62
• Parties: WINFIELD M. BULLOCKv.DENNIS NARROTT.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

49 Ill. 62

1868 WL 5176 (Ill.)

WINFIELD M. BULLOCK

v.DENNIS NARROTT.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1868.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Woodford County; the Hon. SAMUEL L. RICHMOND, Judge, presiding.

The facts in this case are fully stated in the opinion.

Messrs. INGERSOLL, MCCUNE & S. D. PUTERBAUGH, for the appellant.

Mr. JOHN CLARK, for the appellee.

Mr. CHIEF JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court: This was an action of replevin, in the Woodford Circuit Court, by Dennis Narrott against Winfield M. Bullock, the sheriff of that county, who had levied an execution upon the property in question, issued in favor of Backnell & McKinney, out of the clerk's office of the circuit court of Woodford, against Joseph Jacquin, bearing date September 30, 1867.

It appeared the property belonged to Jacquin, and was claimed by the plaintiff under a chattel mortgage executed to him by Jacquin, dated July 26, 1866, duly acknowledged and recorded, to secure the payment of a note of the same date, for $300. The property was levied on by the sheriff as the property of Jacquin, on the 17th day of December, 1867. The sheriff entered upon the property, took the keys and brought them away with him. The property was a warehouse, a corn-crib, a small frame building used as an office, and one Fairbanks scales, all on the right-of-way of the Toledo, Peoria & Warsaw Railroad, and so constructed as to be easily removed. The fee in the land was in the railroad company. Their value was about $8,000.

It was testified on the part of the defendant, by one Schneider, that on the 28th of October, 1867, the day of the death of Jacquin, his widow showed to him a note, payable to the same person and signed by the same person as the one offered in evidence by the plaintiff, saying, that she had found it among Jacquin's papers after his death; is satisfied the note in evidence is the same as the one showed him by the widow of Jacquin.

Mrs. Jacquin, the widow, testified, she could not read English; that after her husband's death she found some papers he had in his possession, and took them to Mr. Schneider, and afterwards gave the plaintiff, who is her brother-in-law, one of these papers.

It was proved by several witnesses, that in 1867, all the claim the plaintiff had against Jacquin was for some liabilities he was under as surety on a replevin bond to one Davidson, which, if Davidson recovered, would amount to about $600, and for a debt he had paid one Cross, due by Jacquin, amounting to $144.

It was also proved by one O'Connell, when the mortgage was made, the property was worth about $6,920; that he had a conversation about this mortgage several times with plaintiff; first talked with him the winter after Jacquin's death, when he said, in one of the conversations, that he did not want to have any lawsuits, and wanted witness to write to Munn & Scott for him, and say that he would give them $700 or $800 for their claim against Jacquin and this property. Witness wrote the letter. Plaintiff then went on to say, that he wanted to get enough out of this property to pay Mrs. Cross, and to secure himself on the Davidson matter. He said if he could get enough out of it to pay Munn & Scott $700 or $800, and...