Hackett v. Jones

Decided February 4, 1890

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1890-02-04

Wm. C. Jones, Judge, presiding. This is an action of replevin brought by appellant against appellee, who is the sheriff of Crawford county, Illinois, to recover certain property levied on by him as such sheriff. To the plaintiff’s declaration the defendant filed ¡deas of non eepit, non detinet, property in Charles FT. Hackett, and filed special pleas in which the recovery of five separate judgments against Charles FT.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1909

2 state decisions

Relies on Vose v. Hart · Ingalls v. Bulkley · Underwood v. White

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-02-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Phillips, J.

¶1The pleas of non eepit and non detinet admit the property in plaintiff, and put in issue the taking and detention only. The verdict of not guilty was responsive only to the pleas of non oepit and non detinet. Hanford v. Obrecht, 38 Ill. 493; Bourk v. Riggs, 38 Ill. 320; Underwood v. White, 45 Ill. 437; Ingalls v. Bulkley, 15 Ill. 224.

¶2There was no finding as to the six special pleas, and it was error to enter judgment on a verdict finding on but part of the issues, and silent as to others. Vase et al. v. Hart, 12 Ill. 378; Nelson v. Bowen, 15 Ill. App. 477; Mattson v. Hirsch, 5 Ill. App. 104.

¶3The verdict of not guilty does not authorize the awarding of a writ retorno hdbendo. Hanford v. Obrecht, supra.

¶4Humerous other questions of law and fact are presented by this record which we deem it unnecessary to consider, as, for' the errors indicated, the judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

¶5Reversed and remanded.