Pratt v. Tucker

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WALKER
• Citation: Pratt v. Tucker, 67 Ill. 346, 1873 WL 8211 (Ill. 1873)
• Decision Date: 31 January 1873
• Parties: EDWARD PRATTv.NATHANIEL TUCKER et al.

67 Ill. 346

1873 WL 8211 (Ill.)

EDWARD PRATT

v.NATHANIEL TUCKER et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1873.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Circuit Court of Tazewell county; the Hon. CHARLES TURNER, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of replevin, by Nathaniel Tucker and Henry Mansfield, partners, by the name and style of Tucker & Mansfield, against Edward Pratt, sheriff, etc. The opinion states the facts. Mr. JOHN B. COHRS, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. ROBERTS, GREEN & PURPLE, for the defendants in error.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKER delivered the opinion of the Court:

This was an action of replevin, brought in the Tazewell circuit court, by defendants in error, against plaintiff in error, who was acting sheriff of the county.

The suit was for the recovery of a lot of horses and mules and a set of harness. Pleas were filed, first, non detinet; second, property in one John L. Winters, and third, a justification under an execution from the circuit court of Tazewell county, in favor of Edward Wilson, and against Winters, under which the property had been seized to satisfy the same. Issues were formed on these pleas, and a trial had, resulting in a verdict that the property was in plaintiffs, “except the mare bought at Allensworth's sale.” After overruling a motion for a new trial, the court rendered judgment against defendant for the costs of the suit.

On this verdict, it is manifest that the court below erred in not rendering a judgment for the return of the mare purchased at the Allensworth sale. By the finding of the jury, defendants in error had no right to that animal, and having no right to it, they took it wrongfully from plaintiff in error. He had seized it on execution, and defendants in error replevied it from him, and the jury found they had no right to the mare,...