Foote v. the People
| Decision Date | 31 December 1883 |
| Citation | 14 Bradw. 280,14 Ill.App. 280 |
| Parties | GEORGE W. FOOTEv.THE PEOPLE, use, etc. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Knox county; the Hon. ARTHUR A. SMITH, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed February 29, 1884.
Mr. W. C. CALKINS, for appellant; that if the act of a party is calculated to mislead, and actually does mislead another acting upon it in good faith and exercising reasonable care and diligence under all circumstances, such party is estopped, cited Manfs. Bk. v. Hazard, 30 N. Y. 226; Amonett v. Young, 14 La. Ann. 175; Bigelow on Estoppel, 501; Hoxie v. Home Ins. Co., 32 Conn. 21; Noble v. Chrisman, 88 Ill. 186; Lloyd v. Lee, 45 Ill. 277; Brooks v. Record, 47 Ill. 30; Buckingham v. Hanna, 2 Ohio, 551.
The verdict was against the weight of evidence: I. C. R. R. Co. v. Chambers, 71 Ill. 519; Harms v. Harms, 10 Bradwell, 543; McGregor v. McDevitt, 64 Ill. 261.
Messrs. WILLOUGHBY & DOUGHERTY and Mr. F. S. MURPHY, for appellee; as to estoppel in the case of a minor, cited Bigelow on Estoppel, 486; Kane Co. v. Herrington, 50 Ill. 238; Schnell v. Chicago, 38 Ill. 382; Davidson v. Young, 38 Ill. 148.
As to the liability of an officer on an execution against one person, seizing by mistake the goods of another: Davis v. Jenkins, 11 M. & W. 745; Screws v. Watson, 48 Ala. 628; Duke v. Vincent, 29 Ia. 308; Wintringham v. Lafoy, 7 Cow. 735; Wellman v. English, 38 Cal. 583; Jarvin v. Hooper, 6 M. & G. 827.
This record shows that Mrs. Francis Major, the mother of the J. R. Major for whose use this suit is brought, on or about October 4, 1877, moved from Warren county in this State to Ohio, and packed her goods in two boxes for the purpose of having the same shipped by rail to her destination, and delivered the goods to the railroad agent, marked to Levi Morgan, Bridgeport, Ohio. Mrs. Major being indebted to one Fay, he sued out an attachment writ from a justice of the peace, which was levied upon the two boxes of goods and sewing machine then in possession of the carrier. Judgment being obtained by Fay, sufficient of the goods were sold by the constable, Smith, to satisfy the judgment, and the remainder shipped to Morgan.
Mrs. Major, claiming the goods as exempt, sued this same appellant, who was security upon Smith's official bond, and recovered in the circuit court, and her judgment was afterward reversed in this court: Foote v. The People, 12 Bradwell, 94; and then the son instituted this suit, claiming to be the owner of some of the articles in the two boxes seized by Smith.
A verdict was rendered in his favor, whereupon he entered a remittitur of $50 and the court entered judgment for the remainder, $205.50, and the surety, Foote, appealed.
The evidence shows that Mr. Major resided with his mother in this State, and was at the time they removed but seventeen years old, and the question was made whether as a minor he had any ownership in the property claimed by him in this suit.
This issue was submitted to the jury under instructions, to which counsel urge no objection, and the verdict must be taken as settling that question in his favor.
The goods of the appellee, Major, were put in the same boxes with those of his mother for convenience in shipping, and it is insisted that the constable having a right to seize the goods of the attachment debtor, and he having no means of...
To continue reading
Request your trial