Hipple v. De Puie
Illinois Supreme Court
Hipple v. De Puie, 51 Ill. 528 (Ill. 1869)
Lawrence
Hipple v. De Puie
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
The counsel for appellant makes but two points in his brief: First, that the plaintiff was not a competent witness under the statute ; and, Second, that there was no evidence of a conversion. In regard to the first, it need only be said that the question of plaintiff’s competency as a witness, was not raised in the court below ; and as to the second, the plaintiff swore to_ facts amounting to a .conversion, and - the jury thought proper to believe her.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- James W. Hipple, &c. v. Emma De Puie
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Practice—w7¡e«. ¡So oSJeci to competency of a witness. The objection that a witness is not competent, when not made in the court below, can not be availed of in the appellate court. 2. Tbover—what constitutes a conversion. Where a landlord took forcible possession of the demised premises, from which he removed the goods of the tenant, and then refused to permit the tenant to take them away, that was held to be a conversion of the goods by the landlord, and the tenant might maintain trover therefor.