{
  "id": 2898459,
  "name": "Clotilde Machelli, Appellee, v. Silvester Torrelli, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Machelli v. Torrelli",
  "decision_date": "1914-10-27",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 5,967",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 Ill. App. 287"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3550,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "2a0281923564e00f61a506bb451b3c0e00c182d15726298b6f6d8005133ec9ab",
    "simhash": "1:2ac3189508cafa19",
    "word_count": 594
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clotilde Machelli, Appellee, v. Silvester Torrelli, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n8. Replevin, \u00a7 126*-\u2014sufficiency of evidence to show demand. In an action of replevin of a horse, evidence held to show a demand for the property and a refusal by the defendant to deliver before institution of suit.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Carnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter A. Panneck, for appellant.",
      "Watts A. & Carey R. Johnson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clotilde Machelli, Appellee, v. Silvester Torrelli, Appellant.\nGen. No. 5,967.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Bureau county; the Hon. Joe A. Davis, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 27, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nReplevin by Clotilde Machelli against Silvester Torrelli to recover the possession of a horse. Plaintiff\u2019s husband had traded the horse to defendant for another. From a judgment on a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, defendant appeals.\nIt was contended that plaintiff\u2019s testimony, that she obtained the money from her deceased father\u2019s estate with which she purchased the horse, was unreasonable, inconsistent with itself and should be disregarded, and that she probably obtained the money from her husband who earned wages as a laboring man.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Replevin, \u00a7 40 \u2014what constitutes demand and refusal of property. Where a claimant told one in possession of a horse that she was going to the pasture and take the, horse, and he answered if she did it would cost her dear, the conversation amounted to a demand and refusal upon which a replevin action might be based.\n2. Appeal and ebrob, \u00a7 481*\u2014when rulings on motion for peremptory instructions not preserved for review. Where the trial court refuses defendant\u2019s motion for a peremptory instruction at the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, and again at the close of all the evidence, defendant waives the first error by introducing evidence in defense after the overruling of his motion, and as he did not tender the written instruction asked at either time, he cannot raise the question on appeal.\n3. Replevin, \u00a7 124*\u2014insufficiency of evidence for directed verdict. In an action of replevin, evidence held insufficient to require a. directed verdict for defendant even if properly made.\n4. New trial, \u00a7 127*'\u2014necessity for weighing evidence. In passing on a motion for a new trial a court is required to weigh the evidence, although not so required in passing upon a motion for a directed verdict..\n5. Replevin, \u00a7 124*\u2014sufficiency of evidence. In a replevin suit, evidence held sufficient to support the verdict of right of property in plaintiff.\n6. Estoppel, \u00a7 50*\u2014evidence insufficient to show ratification. Where the evidence was conflicting as to where and how plaintiff learned of her husband\u2019s trading a horse, held insufficient to show ratification of the transaction.\n7. Replevin, \u00a7 147*\u2014effect of omission of elements in instructions. Where at the instance of defendant the jury were instructed that the only question involved in the case was whether or not at the time plaintiff\u2019s husband and the defendant traded or exchanged horses\u2014the plaintiff in the case was the owner and was entitled to the possession of the horse in controversy, and that the burden of proof was on her to establish that fact, he was not in a position to complain that the jury ignored or mistook other questions of fact, such as demand before the replevin action was instituted or ratification of the trade after it was made.\nWalter A. Panneck, for appellant.\nWatts A. & Carey R. Johnson, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI t\u00f3 XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 309,
  "last_page_order": 311
}