Sloan v. Lowder

Decision Date16 June 1899
PartiesSLOAN v. LOWDER et al.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

23 Ind.App. 118
54 N.E. 135

SLOAN
v.
LOWDER et al.1

Appellate Court of Indiana.

June 16, 1899.


Appeal from superior court, Marion county; Vinson Carter, Judge.

Action in replevin by Oliver B. Sloan, administrator of the estate of William Sloan, deceased, against Joseph W. Lowder and others. From a judgment, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.


Spencer & Ferris, for appellant. T. M. & C. B. Clarke, for appellees.

HENLEY, J.

This was an action in replevin, and was commenced by appellant to recover property consisting of a gold watch and chain, a phaeton, and a gold nugget. The appellant is the son and administrator of William Sloan, deceased. The appellee Parmenas C. Jacobs is the executor of the will of Mary Sloan, deceased, who was the wife of William Sloan, and the mother of appellee Nettie Lowder. Appellee Joseph Lowder is the husband of said Nettie Lowder. Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the cause, based upon sections 2609, 2610, Burns' Rev. St. 1894. Appeals in actions like the case at bar are not governed by these sections. The action was brought by an administrator, and was not a case growing out of a matter connected with a decedent's estate. It is purely a civil proceeding under the Code, and does not involve the exercise of probate jurisdiction by the court. Appellees jointly answered in two paragraphs; the first paragraph being a general denial, the second averring ownership in another person of a part of the property sought to be recovered. The second paragraph of answer was not tested by a demurrer. Appellant replied in general denial. The cause was tried by a jury, and a general verdict returned. The verdict was as follows: “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff [appellant], and that he is entitled to the possession of the following articles of personal property named in the complaint, to wit: One watch and chain, value ($22.50) twenty-two and fifty-hundredths dollars; one phaeton, valued at twenty-five ($25.00) dollars; and we assess plaintiff's damages for the detention thereof in the sum of one cent; and as to the following articles of personal property named in the complaint, to wit, one gold nugget, value fifteen dollars ($15.00), we find for the defendant.” The jury also found the facts specially by way of answers to interrogatories. Appellees moved for judgment upon the special findings notwithstanding the general verdict. Appellant moved for judgment upon the verdict. The lower court sustained the motion of appellant “as to the watch and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT