Case Name: Charles E. Shelton v. John Franklin
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1873-09
Citations: 68 Ill. 333
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles E. Shelton v. John Franklin.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 333–339

Head Matter:
SEPTEMBER TERM, 1873.
Charles E. Shelton v. John Franklin.
1. Replete*—to avoid the effect of an injunction. A and B were partners dealing in stock. A filed his bill against B to close the partnership, and for an account, and enjoined B from disposing of any of the partnership property, and during the pendency of this suit made a sale of the partnership hogs to the plaintiff, who knew of the pendency of this suit at the time of his purchase, but before delivery B filed his bill in chancery and obtained an injunction against A and the purchaser, enjoining the first from selling the property,i, and the latter from taking possession. After the service of the injunction on him, the purchaser replevied the hogs, and thus obtained possession: Held, that the effect of the second injunction was to annul the proceedings in replevin, and the replevin suit should have been dismissed.
3. Sale—by one partner is good against the other without a delivery. A sale by one partner of personal property belonging to the firm, if within the scope ancl object of the firm, is a sale by the firm, and, as against the firm, an actual delivery is not essential to the sale.
3. Same—where the full price is paid, weighing not necessaA'y to pass the title. Where one partner sold the entire lot of hogs belonging to his firm, at eight cents per pound, and the sum paid at the time was understood to be in excess of the price, but the excess, when ascertained, was to be applied on another transaction: Held, that the title to the hogs passed immediately to the purchaser, without first ascertaining their weight, or making a formal delivery.
4. Same—what a sufficient delivery. Where one partner sold an entire lot of hogs belonging to his firm, then on a third person’s premises, and the purchaser paid the full price at the time of the sale, and the hogs ■were then collected together in the presence of both parties, this was held, a sufficient delivery to pass the title as against the partners.
5. Instructions — must not require the finding of unnecessary fact. Where the proof shows a'sale and delivery of personal property, which passes the same immediately to the purchaser as against the vendors, it is erroneous to give an instruction which assumes that as between the parties something is necessary to be done, as, ascertaining the weight, to pass the title.
6. Verdict—must he consistent with the issues. In replevin, the verdict of the jury must be consistent with the issues presented by the pleadings. On finding the issues for the defendant, finding the property in a person not named in any of the pleas, can not be sustained.
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Livingston county; the Hon. Charles H. Wood, Judge, presiding.
This was an action of replevin, brought by Charles E. Shelton against John Franklin. The opinion of the court shows the state of the pleadings and the facts of the case. Charles Packwood, the partner of the defendant, who sold the hogs, in his testimony stated that the hogs, at the time of the sale, were at what was called Babcock’s Grove; that the day he received the purchase money he went there and took possession of the hogs, and collected them together for the purchaser, who was present to receive them; that the defendant, on being informed of the sale, set his dogs on them and scattered them, and that he told the purchaser there were his hogs, to take them. Judgment being rendered for the defendant, the plaintiff appealed.
Mr. Charles J. Beattie, for the appellant.
Messrs. Payson, Pillsbury& Lawrence, for the appellee.

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
The only point we have considered raised in this record is, the effect of the injunction obtained by Franklin against his co-partner, Packwood, and Shelton, the appellant. It was served on Shelton before the writ of replevin was served on the property, and he knew that prior to that time, and prior to his alleged purchase of the hogs of Packwood, the latter had, by his bill in chancery filed for that purpose, enjoined Franklin from selling and disposing of the partnership property, which these hogs were. It was acting in bad faith, under these circumstances, for Packwood to attempt to sell the same property to Shelton. The hogs were not delivered to Shelton when Franklin obtained his injunction. Chancery had obtained jurisdiction of the subject matter. We think the effect of this injunction should be, to annul the proceedings in replevin, and instead of proceeding to judgment in the replevin suit, the same should have been dismissed,-so as not to jeopard Shelton's rights in case the injunction should be dismissed on the hearing.
To effect this purpose, the judgment must be reversed. The judgment is, accordingly, reversed, and the action of replevin dismissed, as in violation of the writ of injunction.
Judgment reversed.