Van Horn v. Redmon
| Decision Date | 15 December 1885 |
| Parties | VAN HORN v. REDMON AND ANOTHER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Montgomery district court.
This is a controversy involving the ownership of two colts. The form of the action is replevin. There was a trial by jury, and a verdict and judgment for the defendants. Plaintiff appeals.W. H. Redmond and W. S. Straun, for appellant, Tunis Van Horn.
Junkin & Deemer, for appellees, S. H. Redmon and another.
It appears from the record in the case that the colts in question were once owned by one Wesley Hall. At the time he became the owner of the property he resided with one C. H. Hall. Wesley Hall left the residence of C. H. Hall, and the colts were in a pasture upon a part of the plaintiff's father's farm, which was in the possession of one Fryer. Wesley Hall was working for the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff claims that he bought the colts of Wesley Hall and paid him the contract price therefor. He took possession of them, and put them in a pasture belonging to and in the possession of his father. The fence was broken down and the colts taken away by C. H. Hall and the defendant Overman, and others, under the claim made by C. H. Hall that he was the owner, having purchased them from Wesley Hall before the alleged purchase by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued out a search-warrant, and the colts were taken possession of by virtue of the warrant by the defendant Redmon, who is a constable. The plaintiff then commenced this action in replevin against Redmon. The defendant Overman intervened in the action, and claimed that he is the owner of the colts by purchase from C. H. Hall, and the issue presented for trial was whether the plaintiff or Overman was the owner of the property. Overman does not claim by any other right than that acquired from C. H. Hall. No question of innocent purchaser without notice arises in the case, and the evidence was directed to the validity of the alleged purchase made by the plaintiff and that made by C. H. Hall. There was direct evidence supporting the claim of each party. The alleged purchase by C. H. Hall was prior in point of time to that of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff endeavored to prove that no purchase whatever was made by Hall.
The verdict in the case was returned on the second day of April, 1884, and on the fifth day of the same month the plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, setting forth a number of grounds therefor. Two days...
To continue reading
Request your trial