Kansteiner v. Clyne
| Decision Date | 03 December 1896 |
| Parties | KANSTEINER v. CLYNE |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
NONSUIT.-Held, that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, and the court erred in granting nonsuit.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Bingham County.
Reversed and remanded for trial.
F. S. Dietrich, for Appellant.
Even granting defendant's contention that the property in question was not exempt from execution against the plaintiff's husband, the ruling was still error. Under a claim of ownership the plaintiff had the actual possession of the property. As far as the proof goes, it tends to show that defendant was, and is, a naked trespasser who seized and detains the property without a shadow of justification. (Kane v. Desmond, 63 Cal. 464; Bickerstaff v. Doub, 19 Cal. 107.)
Reeves & Terrell, for Respondent.
No authorities cited on the point decided.
This is a suit in replevin, brought to recover the possession of sixteen head of livestock (cattle), or their value, alleged to be $ 275, in case a recovery of the possession cannot be had, together with damages. The defendant admits the taking, and seeks to justify on the ground that he, as constable, took said stock under and by virtue of an execution against the property of plaintiff's husband. The judgment of the justice court was in favor of the defendant, and an appeal was taken to the district court. The cause was tried in that court to a jury, and, at the close of plaintiff's evidence, on motion of defendant, a nonsuit was granted, and judgment entered against plaintiff. This appeal is from the judgment. The appellant specifies as error the granting of the motion for nonsuit and the entry of judgment of dismissal. The evidence of plaintiff shows that she was in the actual possession of the livestock mentioned in the complaint, and at least tends to show that she is the owner thereof, and established a prima facie case. It was error to grant the nonsuit. The judgment is reversed, and cause remanded for trial. Cost of appeal awarded to appellant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Phoenix Assur. Co.
...276, 13 P. 80; Kroetch v. Empire Mill Co., 9 Idaho 277, 74 P. 868; Idaho Milling Co. v. Kalanquin, 7 Idaho 295, 62 P. 925; Kansteiner v. Clyne, 5 Idaho 59, 46 P. 1019; Pearlstine v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 70 S.C. 49 S.E. 4, and cases cited.) Every ground set forth in defendant's motion ......
-
Keane v. Pittsburg Lead Mining Co.
... ... complaint, its sufficiency should be determined by the jury ... and not by the court. ( Kansteiner v. Clyne, 5 Idaho ... 59, 46 P. 1019; Black v. City of Lewiston, 2 Idaho ... 276; Lewis v. Lewis, 3 Idaho 645, 33 P. 38; ... Simpson v ... ...
-
Bank of Commerce v. Baldwin
...1042.) It is error to grant a nonsuit when plaintiff has made a prima facie case. (Simpson v. Remington, 6 Idaho 681, 59 P. 360; Kansteiner v. Clyne, 5 Idaho 59. 46 P. Lewis v. Lewis, 3 Idaho 645, 33 P. 38; Black v. City of Lewiston, 2 Idaho 276, 13 P. 80.) A married woman who has induced a......
-
First Nat. Bank of St. Anthony v. Steers
... ... possession of his security according to the terms of the ... contract? (Karsteiner v. Clyne, 5 Idaho 59, 46 P ... 1019.) It is a general rule that the plaintiff in a replevin ... suit must recover not upon the weakness of his ... ...