The County of Montgomery v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Parties | THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERYv.SANFORD ROBINSON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Montgomery county; the Hon. HORATIO M. VANDEVEER, Judge, presiding.
Mr. BENJ. E. JOHNSON, for the appellant.
Messrs. LANE, RICE & PAISLEY, for the appellee.
It appears that this action was brought by appellee in the Montgomery circuit court, against that county, to recover $300 for the pursuit and arrest of a horse thief who was subsequently convicted of stealing appellee's horse in the county. The thief escaped from the county, had fled to the State of North Carolina, and was there arrested and confined in jail on another charge. Appellee, learning that fact, procured a requisition from the Governor of this State, on the Governor of that State, for the return of Barringer, the thief. One White was appointed to receive and bring him back from North Carolina, and appellee paid to White $100 to defray expenses of his return.
The following is an order adopted by the county, under the statute, in June, 1865:
“ Ordered, that the sum of three hundred dollars be offered as a reward, to be paid out of the county treasury of this county, to any person or persons who shall hereafter pursue and arrest, beyond the limits of this county, any person guilty of stealing any horse, mare, colt, mule or ass, within the territory of this county and from a citizen of the same, which reward shall be payable on the conviction of the thief before the proper court of record.”
On these facts, which are not disputed, except it is denied that White was acting for appellee, and it is claimed he acted for himself, the jury found the issues for plaintiff, and assessed his damages at $300. A motion for a new trial was entered by the county, but was overruled by the court, and judgment was rendered on the verdict. The county appeals.
It is first urged, that the court below erred in overruling a motion for a continuance, on account of the absence of witnesses. Appellee, as provided by the statute, admitted the affidavit to go in evidence. See sec. 44, Rev. Stat. 1874, p. 780. This was all the county was entitled to under the statute, and we are unable to perceive any error in overruling the motion. In fact, the statute, in terms, prohibits the allowance of a continuance where the opposite party will admit the affidavit in evidence. Had the court granted the continuance it would have been palpable error, as the statute is peremptory in its requirements.
It is next urged, that the court below erred in overruling the motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence fails to sustain the verdict. Counsel for the county urges some highly refined and exceedingly technical objections. He insists that appellee did not arrest the thief, as he did not act in person. It is only necessary to say, that the familiar maxim, “ Qui facit per alium, facit per se,” applies, with its full force, in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bennett v. Gerk
...personal arrest by claimant not being necessary. 54 C. J., section 48, page 793; Ralls County v. Stephens, 104 Mo.App. 115; Montgomery County v. Robinson, 85 Ill. 174; Swanson v. Ost, 74 Ill.App. 281; Elkins Wyandotte County, 91 Kans. 518, 138 P. 578, 51 L.R.A. (N. S.) 638, Ann. Cas. 1915D,......
-
Bennett et al. v. Gerk et al., 22392.
...shown by course of conduct as well as by express contract. Klaber v. Fidelity Bldg. Co., 19 S.W. (2d) 758; Montgomery County v. Robinson, 85 Ill. 174. (6) Where a reward is offered for the apprehension or arrest of a criminal, that person is held entitled to the reward who furnishes informa......
-
Chambers v. Ogle
...in what he did was acting as the agent of appellant in the capture of Moore, and is not entitled to share in the reward. 92 U.S. 73, 76; 85 Ill. 174; 78 194. 3. Berry, Vaughan and Shuster, are not entitled to share in the reward, because (1) their participation in the events preceding the c......
-
Nardi & Co., Inc. v. Allabastro
... ... separate farm families options to buy two hundred acres of contiguous farmland in DuPage County, Illinois. Allabastro planned to have the land rezoned and then sell it at $10,000 per acre for ... This reminds us of the old Illinois case where a horse thief, for whose capture Montgomery County offered a $300 reward, escaped and fled to the State of North Carolina where he was arrested and confined on another charge. Robinson, who had been victimized by the thief, employed White, paid his expenses and sent him, assisted by ... ...