Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Frederick D. Fulkerson, Judge;

statement by the court.

Appellee instituted this action before a justice of the peace by filing his affidavit that Charles Hunter was indebted to him in the sum of $67.70 for some walnut logs sold by appellee to Hunter, and that the purchase money therefor was due and unpaid, and a-slcing judgment for said sum, and that it be declared a lien on the said logs, and at the same time gave a bond to procure the issuance of the order .of seizure. Appellee also filed an itemized statement of an account with Hunter, which showed a balance due from Hunter to appellee of $2.45.

Upon the affidavit which was filed the justice issued an order, directing the constable to attach and safely keep the said walnut logs, or so much thereof, as would be necessary to satisfy a debt of ■ the • appellee against Hunter for $67.70 for puchase money of said walnut logs, and also'to summon the defendant (Hunter), which writ was returned duly served by the constable taking possession of the said walnut logs, and also upon defendant as an ordinary summons.

Hunter filed an answer in which he denied the indebtedness, and denied that the appellee had any right or interest in said logs in any manner whatever, or that he was entitled to any lien on the same or any part thereof.

The East St. Eouis Walnut 'Company interpleaded, and set up that it was the absolute owner of said logs.

There was a trial in the justice of the peace .court, which resulted in a judgment against both Hunter and the intervener, and an appeal of both causes was duly prosecuted to the circuit court.

On the trial of the attachment suit in the circuit court, the appellee, to sustain his cause of action, introduced the following testimony, to-wit:

J. W. Eindley, appellee, stated: “I am the plaintiff. Charles Hunter is the defendant. He was, at the beginning of this suit, indebted for $63 for logs and $2.40 on account. The $63 was due for some walnut logs. They are the same logs attached in that suit by the constable. I do not know who had possession of these logs when they were attached, but they had been sold. I understood they had been branded, and that was notice to me that they had been sold.”

This was all the evidence in the case.

Whereupon Hunter requested the court to instruct the jury that there can be no lien on the logs in this case, under the pleadings and the evidence, which motion was overruled, and Hunter duly excepted.

Thereupon the court directed the jury to return the following verdict, to-wit. “We, the jury, find for the plaintiff (appellee) in the sum of $65 debt, and that $63 of it is a lien on the logs in controversy.”

The motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, exceptions duly saved, time granted to file bill of exceptions, and appeal granted to Hunter.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress