Indiana Supreme Court
Baer v. Martin
2 Ind. 229
Decided October 28, 1850
Good LawGood law: 2 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The court reversed a replevin judgment for the plaintiff because the evidence did not establish either an unlawful taking or an unlawful detention of the mare. Although the plaintiff acquired the mare at an execution sale, the record did not show who possessed it or that the plaintiff demanded its return from the defendant.
Holdings
- Whether the plaintiff established an unlawful taking or unlawful detainer sufficient to support recovery in replevin.. The plaintiff could not recover because he proved neither an unlawful taking nor an unlawful detainer of the mare.
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
5 opinions cite this case
Applied
Krug v. Herod, 69 Ind. 78. The court used the stated rule to support its conclusion that the essential possession or detention allegation had to be proved.
Applied
Krug v. Herod, 69 Ind. 78. The court used the stated rule to support its conclusion that the essential possession or detention allegation had to be proved.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
This was an action of replevin brought by John Martin against Michael Baer, before a justice of the peace. Judgment by the justice for the defendant.
The plaintiff appealed to the Circuit Court.
The cause was submitted to the Court without a jury. Judgment for the plaintiff.
The cause of action filed was for the unlawful taking and the unlawful detainer of a certain grey mare of the value of 50 dollars.
The defendant was entitled to the general issue; the cause having originated before a justice of the peace.
The record contains all the evidence.
The following are the material facts proved:
One William Martin recovered a judgment for 25 dollars, before a justice of the peace, against the. present defendant, Baer. The mare now in dispute was sold under an execution on that judgment to the present plaintiff, John Martin. There was no evidence as to who had possession of the mare at the time of the sale or at any other time. There was no demand of the mare proved to have been made by the plaintiff on the defendant.
Z. Baird, for the plaintiff.
JD. D. Pratt and J. W. Wright, for the defendant.
There can be no doubt but that the judgment for the plaintiff is not supported by the evidence. To enable the plaintiff to recover, it was necessary for him to prove either an unlawful taking or an unlawful detainer. In this case he did neither.
The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded for further proceedings. Costs here.
Research the next case the same way
Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.
Search every way lawyers do
Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.
See what still holds
Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.
Check a brief before you file
CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.
Use it where you work
The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.
Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders
Related landmark cases
- Krug v. Herod69 Ind. 78 (1879)
- Fipps v. Stidham.174 Okla. 473 (1935)
- Plant v. Crane and Another7 Ind. 486 (1856)
- Mayer, Appellant v. Chelten Avenue Building Corporation321 Pa. 193 (1936)