Case Name: James S. Beaumont, Appellant, v. - Yantz, Appellee
Court: Illinois Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1820-07
Citations: 1 Breese 26
Docket Number: 
Parties: James S. Beaumont, Appellant, v. - Yantz, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 26–27

Head Matter:
James S. Beaumont, Appellant, v. - Yantz, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM MONROE.
A declaration in an action of trespass for taking and conveying away “four horses, the property of the plaintiff,” is sufficiently certain and descriptive of the property taken.
This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis, brought by Yantz against Beaumont in the court below, for taking and conveying away “ four horses, the property, goods and chattels of the plaintiff, of the value of three hundred dollars.” The defendant demurred to the declaration, and assigned as causes of demurrer, 1. That the horses were not described with sufficient particularity; and 2. That the value of each horse should have been stated in the declaration. The demurrer was overruled, and an appeal taken to this court.

Opinion:
Opinion of the Court. The cases cited by the appellant's counsel, do not apply to this case. It is not necessary that each horse should be particularly described. Mentioning the number of horses, and an allegation that they were the property of the plaintiff, is sufficient. There is no precedent to be found in the books, in which the property is precisely described, as to its shape, color, &c. A recovery in this action could well be pleaded in bar of a suit, for four black geldings, unless the plaintiff should new-assign, and show them to be other and different ones, from those for which this suit is brought.
As to the second objection, it is sufficient that the aggregate value of all the horses be set forth in the declaration. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
In trespass for taking and carrying away a quantity of poultry of several descriptions, it is not necessary to state how many there were of each description, the collective value of the whole being stated. Donaghe v. Roudeboush, 4 Munf., 251.