Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

17 Ill. 166

Armstrong v. Mock

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1855

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1855-12-15

This was an action of replevin, commenced by Mock vs. Armstrong, in the Circuit Court of Menard county, at the May term thereof, 1855, for one hundred and forty-one head of cattle. The affidavit for the replevin and the declaration are in the usual form of taking and detention, and, to the declaration, the defendant filed several pleas, to-wit: that defendant did not take— that defendant did not detain—property out of plaintiff, and in defendant—property in defendant alone.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1855-12-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1916

12 state decisions

401855186018701880189019001910decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Scates, C. J.

¶1The parties went to trial without a formal joinder of issue on the fourth plea. The substance of the plea was property in defendant below, plaintiff here. The third plea put the same fact in issue. Proceeding to trial without a formal issue, is, after verdict, treated as a waiver either of the issue or the plea; and verdict will not be set aside, if there were no plea. Brazzle et al. v. Usher, Breese R. 14; Ross et al. v. Reddick, 1 Scam. R. 74. It is based upon the supposition, and doubtless founded in truth, that the real merits in controversy have been tried and determined. But this reason would not apply, and the rule is otherwise in cases of immaterial issues. Woods v. Hynes, 1 Scam. R. 103.

¶2The instructions given at the instance of plaintiff below, although excepted to at the time, are not assigned for error.

¶3Those asked by defendant below, have been assigned for error, but no exception to their refusal was taken at the trial.

¶4The court have repeatedly held, that the exception must be taken on the trial, and that fact must appear on the face of the record. 3 Scam. R. 17, 23, 63; 5 Gil. R. 453; 11 Ill. R. 72; 1 Scam. R. 252.

¶5No question is, therefore, presented for revision in this record.

¶6Judgment affirmed.

/17/ill/166 · .json · Public domain