Mahoney v. Marshall
Mahoney v. Marshall
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff brought action of claim and delivery to recover possession of certain personal property taken by defendant. The property had been delivered to plaintiff by one Moon, the owner, as security for a debt owing from said Moon to plaintiff. It was seized by defendant Marshall, as sheriff; by virtue of a chattel mortgage in favor of defendant Child. Defendants admit that said chattel mortgage is void. The case was tried by a jury, and before submission it was agreed by the parties, through their respective attorneys, that "the judgment or verdict found by the jury should be for the full sum of $2,500 or nothing.” The verdict was for plaintiff for the sum of $2,500.
The appellants contend that the district court erred in entering judgment for $2,500, and claim that it should have been for a lesser sum. We think defendants are estopped by their stipulation from raising that objection here, especially as the evidence shows the plaintiff entitled to recover that sum. We
Reference
- Full Case Name
- MAHONEY v. MARSHALL, Sheriff
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Claim and Delivery — Stipulation op Attorneys — Defendant Bound by Stipulation. — 1. In an action of claim and delivery, it was stipulated by tbe parties through their respecive attorneys, that if plaintiff was entitled to recover at all, he was entitled to recover the full value of the property (in this ease $2,500), or nothing. ‘Verdict of Jury. — 2. The jury found for the plaintiff in the sum of $2,500. The record showing that the plaintiff was clearly entitled to recover, held, that a verdict and judgment for $2,500 would not be disturbed. Stipulation of Attorneys. — 3. Where attorneys for respective parties stipulate plaintiff is entitled to a sum certain, naming it, the defendant is estopped from raising an objection that the Amount stipulated is too much. (Syllabus by the court.)