Mahoney v. Marshall

• Citation: 2 Idaho 1174,31 P. 809
• Parties: MAHONEY v. MARSHALL et al.
• Decision Date: 31 December 1892
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Idaho

31 P. 809

2 Idaho 1174

MAHONEY v. MARSHALL et al.

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 31, 1892

Syllabus

1. In an action of claim and delivery it was stipulated by the parties, through their respective attorneys, that, if plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, he was entitled to recover the full value of the property (in this case $2,500) or nothing.

2. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500. The record showing that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover, held, that a verdict and judgment for $2,500 would not be disturbed.

Appeal from district court, Cassia county; C. O. STOCKSLAGER, Judge.

Action of claim and delivery by B. F. Mahoney against G. S. Marshall and others. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Hawley & Reeves, J. C. Rogers, and L. Vineyard, for appellants.

Charles Cobb, Smith & Smith, and J. Brumback, for respondent.

OPINION

HUSTON, J.

Plaintiff brought action of claim and delivery to recover possession of certain personal property taken by defendant. The property had been delivered to plaintiff by one Moon, the owner, as security for a debt owing from said Moon to plaintiff. It was seized by defendant Marshall, as sheriff, by virtue of a chattel mortgage in favor of defendant Child. Defendants admit that said chattel mortgage is void. The case was tried by a jury, and before submission it was agreed by the parties, through their respective attorneys, that "the judgment or verdict found by the jury should be for the full sum of twenty-five hundred dollars or nothing." The verdict was for plaintiff for the sum of $2,500.

The appellants contend that the district court erred in entering judgment for $2,500, and claim that it should have been for a lesser sum. We think defendants are estopped by their stipulation from raising that objection here, especially as the evidence shows the plaintiff entitled to recover that sum. We have carefully examined the record, and, finding no error, the judgment of the district court is affirmed, with costs to appellants.

SULLIVAN, C. J., and MORGAN, J., concur.