Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Ind. 229

Baer v. Martin

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 28, 1850

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1850-10-28

<p>To sustain an action of replevin it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove either an unlawful tailing or an unlawful detainer.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1850-10-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1975

5 state decisions

301850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 →

Blackford, J.

¶1This was an action of replevin brought by John Martin against Michael Baer, before a justice of the peace. Judgment by the justice for the defendant.

¶2The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court.

¶3The cause was submitted to the Court without a jury. Judgment for the plaintiff.

¶4The cause of action filed was for the unlawful taking and the unlawful detainer of a certain grey mare of the value of 50 dollars.

¶5The defendant was entitled to the general issue; the cause having originated before a justice of the peace.

¶6The record contains all the evidence.

¶7The following are the material facts proved:

¶8One William Martin recovered a judgment for 25 dollars, before a justice of the peace, against the. present defendant, Baer. The mare now in dispute was sold under an execution on that judgment to the present plaintiff, John Martin. There was no evidence as to who had possession of the mare at the time of the sale or at any other time. There was no demand of the mare proved to have been made by the plaintiff on the defendant.

Z. Baird, for the plaintiff.JD. D. Pratt and J. W. Wright, for the defendant.

¶9There can be no doubt but that the judgment for the plaintiff is not supported by the evidence. To enable the plaintiff to recover, it was necessary for him to prove either an unlawful taking or an unlawful detainer. In this case he did neither.

Per Curiam.

¶10The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings. Costs here.

/2/ind/229 · .json · Public domain