Knott v. People of State
| Decision Date | 30 September 1876 |
| Citation | 1876 WL 10393,83 Ill. 532 |
| Parties | JOHN KNOTTv.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. JOHN G. ROGERS, Judge, presiding.
Mr. W. A. PHELPS, for the appellant.
On January 4, 1876, Loren Love executed and delivered to John Knott and Mary Knott a chattel mortgage upon certain articles of property therein described, to secure the payment of certain notes therein specified, which mortgage contained the usual stipulations for taking possession and selling by the mortgagees on certain contingencies. Some one or more of the contingencies having occurred, as the mortgagees believed, they caused some of the property to be seized, and advertised the same for sale to satisfy the indebtedness. About the 25th of February, 1876, the mortgagor, Love, instituted an action of replevin before a justice of the peace, to regain the possession of the property, and it was delivered to him under the writ of replevin. On the trial before the justice of the peace, had on the 1st day of March, 1876, the magistrate dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. From this judgment the plaintiff prayed an appeal, and perfected the same on March 3, 1876.
On the morning of the 2d day of March, appellant, with the aid of one John Fogarty, again seized the property, took it out of the possession of Love, and disposed of it in such manner as to place it beyond the reach of Love, or of the officers of the law. The replevin suit being taken to the circuit court by plaintiff's appeal, he, on the 4th day of March, moved the court for a rule upon Fogarty and Knott, to show cause, by the 6th day, why they should not return to the plaintiff the property so seized, which rule was duly served on the parties. No cause having been shown by Fogarty, the court, on the 7th of March, ordered that Fogarty restore the property to Love by Thursday morning, March 9, or, in default thereof, that he be attached for contempt. The order as against Knott was extended to Friday, March 10. On that day Fogarty and Knott appeared and entered a motion to vacate and set aside the orders theretofore made. In support of and against the same, affidavits were read, and the motion denied, and thereupon an order was entered requiring Knott to restore the property to the plaintiff, Love, before Monday morning next, March 13, and Fogarty do the same, or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. State
...to do so. If he willfully disobeyed the order, the court had authority to punish him for contempt. People v. Neill, 74 Ill. 68;Knott v. People, 83 Ill. 532;Dawley v. Brown, 43 How. Prac. 17; Anon., 2 Salk. 588; Doe v. Williams, 29 E. C. L. 186; Greer v. McClelland, 1 Phila. 128; 18 Enc. Pl.......
-
Jenkins v. State
... ... 523; First Nat. Bank v ... Elliott, 60 Kan. 172, 55 P. 880; Gott v ... Powell, 41 Mo. 416; Jones v. Hart, 60 Mo. 362; ... Yott v. People, 91 Ill. 11; Keen v. Saxton, ... 17 N.J.L. 313; 18 Ency. Pl. & Pr. 882. The order directing ... Jenkins to make restitution was a lawful order, and ... so. If he willfully disobeyed the order, the court had ... authority to punish him for contempt. People v ... Neill, 74 Ill. 68; Knott v. People, 83 Ill ... 532; Dawley v. Brown, 43 How. Pr. [N.Y.] 17; [60 ... Neb. 208] Anonymous, 2 Salk. 588; Doe v ... Williams, 29 Eng. C. L ... ...
-
Gates v. People of State
...& S. 245. The court has authority to order return of the goods, and to punish by contempt a failure to comply with the order: Knott v. The People, 83 Ill. 532; The People v. Neill, 74 Ill. 68. The order of committal was interlocutory, and no appeal will lie: Rev. Stat. Chap. 110, § 68; R. &......
-
Universal Credit Co. v. Antonsen
... ... court for failure to surrender possession of the property to the officer, was settled in this State in Yott v. People, 91 Ill. 11, and Horr v. People, 95 Ill. 169.Yott v. People, supra, is a ... Doubtless the case then would have been within the rule declared in Knott v. People, 83 Ill. 532, and People v. Neill, 74 Ill. 68, in which it was held, that where property ... ...