Kehoe v. Rounds
| Decision Date | 30 September 1873 |
| Citation | 1873 WL 8467,69 Ill. 351 |
| Parties | EDWARD KEHOE et al.v.MARY E. ROUNDS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
WRIT OF ERROR to the Superior Court of Cook county.
This was an action of replevin, by Mary E. Rounds, against Edward Kehoe, for a piano. The opinion of the court states the facts.
Mr. THOMAS A. MORAN, for the plaintiffs in error. Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:
It appears, from the record before us, that Mary E. Rounds commenced an action in the Superior Court of Cook county, against the plaintiffs in error, in replevin, to recover the possession of a piano. Service of process was had and the pleadings made up, but, before the cause could be tried on the issue joined, the entire record was destroyed by fire in October, 1871.
On the 11th day of January, 1873, defendant in error obtained leave to supply a substantial copy of the original declaration, which was done. The declaration, as restored, was in the usual form, only there was added a count in trover for the conversion of the property. On the same day she filed what purports to be an affidavit in replevin, in which it is alleged she was the owner of the piano about to be replevied, and all other facts required by the statute to be stated. It was subscribed by her, but if it was ever sworn to, the officer failed to attach his official attestation.
On the same day, the plaintiff in the court below filed another affidavit, in which she declared the declaration and affidavit therewith filed were substantial copies of the original declaration and affidavit which had been destroyed; that the personal property described in the writ, was not and could not be found, as she was informed by the officer who served the writ; and asked that the original cause be reinstated. Thereupon a new writ of replevin was issued, in the form of an original writ, for the recovery of the piano, which was served upon both of the defendants by reading. It was made returnable to the March term of the court. Neither of the defendants appearing, judgment was rendered against them by default, and the court adjudged that the plaintiff should retain the property replevied.
On a subsequent day of the same term the court found the property had not been obtained by the officer who had served the writ. Accordingly the court proceeded to assess the plaintiff's damages for its value, under the count in trover, and rendered judgment against the defendants for $240.
It is very clear, the record in the former suit, which had been destroyed, was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tully v. Town of Northfield.
...that he saw a record without being able to give the contents of it, does not prove a record: Vail v. Iglehart, 69 Ill. 332; Kehoe v. Rounds, 69 Ill. 351; McCabe v. Porter, 73 Ill. 244. Survey and platting does not make a highway: Gentleman v. Soule, 32 Ill. 271; Com'rs of Highways v. The Pe......
-
Roth v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co.
...must be sworn to, and statements in a writing not sworn to before an authorized person cannot be considered affidavits. See Kehoe v. Rounds, 69 Ill. 351 (1873); Kohls v. Maryland Casualty Co., 144 Ill.App.3d 642, 98 Ill.Dec. 847, 494 N.E.2d 1174 (1986); 1 Ill. L. & Prac. Affidavits § 3, at ......
-
S. T. Enterprises, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.
...the value of the property not found or delivered. This alternative remedy was formerly identified 'as in an action of trover.' (Kehoe v. Rounds, 69 Ill. 351, 353; see Ill.Rev.Stat. 1933, ch. 119, par. 18.) The measure of damages in trover is the market value of the property at the time of c......
-
Wilson v. M & W Gear
...value of the property to the plaintiff only if the property is not found or returned. (Brunswick Corp., citing with approval Kehoe v. Rounds (1873), 69 Ill. 351.) Although the defendant does not clearly argue the point, its initial contention appears to be that the plaintiff failed to estab......