October 20, 2012

Beck v. Ingram, Cumberland/Wayne, 1866

Previously:


-----------

Beck vs. Ingram.

COURT OF APPEALS OF KENTUCKY

64 Ky. 355; 1866 Ky. LEXIS 151; 1 Bush 355

February 25, 1866, Decided

PRIOR HISTORY:  [**1]  APPEAL FROM CUMBERLAND CIRCUIT COURT. 

DISPOSITION: Judgment affirmed. 

COUNSEL: P. H. LESLIE, For Appellant,

CITED--
13 Howard, 135.
1 Duvall, 182.
Civil Code, sec. 351.

JOHN S. VANWINKLE, For Appellee,

CITED--
1 Duvall, 312; Spalding vs. Bull.
1 Duvall, 59; Gregory vs. McFarland.
1 Cowp., 180; Moslyn vs. Fobugas.
13 Howard, 135-6; Mitchell vs. Harmony.
1 Duvall, 182; Commonwealth vs. Holland.
Sess. Acts, Ky. Legislature, 1863-4, p. 116.
MSS. Opin., Dec. 14, 1865; Bronson vs. Green.
4 Metcalfe, 385; Norris vs. Donaphan.
8 Cranch, 110; Brewer vs. United States.
MSS. Opin., Dec. 14, 1866; Farmer vs. Lewis.
Wheaton, 596. 

JUDGES: JUDGE ROBERTSON. 

OPINION BY: ROBERTSON 

OPINION

 [*356]  JUDGE ROBERTSON DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.

The appellee, a citizen of Kentucky, while on his way to his home in Wayne county with a lot of mules bought for his own use, was robbed of them by the appellant, in Tennessee, near the Kentucky line, and brought this action to recover damages for the trespass.

The appellant, in his answer, alleged that, as a Confederate captain he took the mules for the use of the Confederacy; and also, because [**2]  he was apprehensive that they were in transitu to the Federal army and for its use. A judgment for reasonable damages was rendered against him, and we see no cause for reversing it, because there was no ground to apprehend that the destination of the mules was contraband; and more materially because, at the time of the seizure and conversion the appellant was a paroled prisoner of the United States, denuded of all belligerent rights of capture, and had neither order nor other authority to take the mules for Confederate use.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...