Nimmo v. Kuykendall
| Decision Date | 30 June 1877 |
| Citation | 1877 WL 9593,85 Ill. 476 |
| Parties | ALEXANDER J. NIMMOv.ANDREW J. KUYKENDALL. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Union county; the Hon. MONROE C. CRAWFORD, Judge, presiding.
Mr. JACKSON FRICK, for the appellant.
Mr. ANDREW D. DUFF, for the appellee.
This was replevin in the cepit and detinet, in the Union circuit court, wherein Andrew J. Kuykendall was plaintiff, and Alexander J. Nimmo defendant, the matter in controversy being certain goods, wares and merchandise, which the defendant, as sheriff, had levied upon as the goods and chattels of one Philip Mead, by virtue of sundry executions in his hands against Mead, issued upon judgments regularly entered against Mead in the county court of Union county, on the twelfth of January, 1875.
The plaintiff claimed the property in virtue of a deed of assignment made by Mead to him on the ninth day of Januuary, 1875, three days prior to the rendition of the several judgments, for the benefit of Mead's creditors, without any reservation or exceptions whatever, and the only question is as to the fairness and legality of this transaction.
Appellant contends the assignment was made by Mead to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors, and therefore null and void as against these executions.
This question was fairly and fully submitted to the court for determination instead of a jury, and the finding of the court, on the authority of repeated decisions of this court, must have the same force and effect as the verdict of a jury.
We can not say the court decided wrong, for the bill of exceptions does not purport to contain all the evidence, and we must presume there was sufficient evidence to warrant the court in the finding. Nor does it appear any exception was taken to the finding, or any motion made for a new trial. According to the doctrine of this court, as repeatedly declared, no motion for a new trial having been made, we can not examine into the question of the propriety of the finding. Reichwald v. Gaylord et al. 73 Ill. 503; Choate v. Hathaway, Id. 518, and previous cases; Bills v. Stanton, 69 ib. 51. But looking at the testimony found in the bill of exceptions, we are not of opinion the finding should be disturbed. The assignment in this case was made evidently for the purpose of benefiting all the creditors of Mead. It was a general assignment for that purpose, and does not come within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kimball v. Citizens' Sav. Bank.
...made and no exception taken, and this court cannot inquire into the finding of the court below: Lawson v. Langhaus, 85 Ill. 138; Nimmo v. Kuykendall, 85 Ill. 476; Reichwald v. Gaylord et al. 73 Ill. 503; Choate v. Hathaway, 73 Ill. 518; Bills v. Stanton, 69 Ill. 51; Law v. Fletcher, 84 Ill.......
-
Cairo & St. Louis R.R. Co. v. Cauble
...Campbell v. Head, 13 Ill. 122; Butler v. Mehrling, 15 Ill. 488; Hopkins v. Ladd, 35 Ill. 178; Lawson v. Lauyhaus, 85 Ill. 138; Nimnov v. Kuykendall, 85 Ill. 476; Gardner v. Russell, 78 Ill. 292; Choate v. Hathaway, 73 Ill. 518. Statutes of Limitations must be specially pleaded: Greenup v. V......
-
Lowery v. Niccolls
...Demoss v. Hanneman, 46 Ill. 185; Smith v. Brown, 46 Ill. 186; Corrigan v. Hardy, 46 Ill. 502; Thompson v. Anthony, 48 Ill. 468; Nimmo v. Kuykendall, 85 Ill. 476. It is sufficient if there has been no unreasonable delay in performing: Beck v. Simmons, 7 Ala. 71; Seton v. Slade, 7 Ves. 265; C......
-
Holbrook v. First Nat'l Bank.
...Werschem, 92 Ill. 115; Annis v. Bonar, 86 Ill. 128; Bowden v. Bowden, 75 Ill. 143. The question of good faith is for the jury: Nimmo v. Kuykendall, 85 Ill. 476; Hessing v. McCloskey, 38 Ill. 341. LACEY, J. The appellant was arrested upon a ca. sa. issued out of the circuit court upon the af......