Case Name: Harms v. Stier
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1894-01-11
Citations: 51 Ill. App. 234
Docket Number: 
Parties: Harms v. Stier.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 51
Pages: 234–239

Head Matter:
Harms v. Stier.
1. Remedies—Election Among Alternative Remedies. —Election among alternative, or as they are usually called, concurrent remedies, which once made is irrevocable, has place under a great variety of circumstances. The most frequent in practice is where a party having a right to rescind a contract, and having knowledge of the facts which give him the right to rescind, brings an action upon the contract, thereby ratifying it. He can not thereafter rescind.
2. Remedies—Irrevocable Election.—Another class of cases of irrevocable election is where a party has obtained property the possession of which is the subject of controversy, by legal proceedings. In such case he must find his remedy by an adjudication in those proceedings, and can not thereafter resort to some alternative remedy.
3: Remedies—Election Among Inconsistent.—Where there exists an - election between inconsistent remedies, a party is confined to the remedy which he first adopts. When remedies are not concurrent, a choice between them once made, the right to follow the other is gone.
4. Remedies—Election Among—The General Buie.—Where the owner of personal property has been deprived of it by the wrongful acts of a stranger, amounting to a conversion of it, two courses are open to him. He may sue in conversion, to recover the value of the property, or in replevin, to recover the property itself, and damages for its withholding. But he can not simultaneously pursue both remedies. To allow him so to do would be to enable him to recover both the property and its value.
5. Concurrent Remedies—Trespass and Beplevin.—For the taking of personal property the owner had his election to sue in replevin, or in trespass, for his property in species in the one, or damages in the other. But having got his property in replevin, his cause of action in trespass is gone.
6. Remedies—Personal Action Suspended.—A personal action once suspended by the act of the party, is forever gone.
Memorandum.—Trespass to personal property. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Frank Baker, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1893, and reversed.
Opinion filed January 11, 1894.
Opinion on rehearing filed April 9, 1894.
The statement of facts is contained in the opinion of the court.
Elbert H. Gary, attorney for appellant.
H. S. Meoartney, attorney for appeUee.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Gary
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellee sued and recovered in trespass for taking his horses. He had, before this suit, replevied the horses, but that suit was dismissed on motion of this appellant for want of a declaration. The appellee put into this case the evidence of the replevin suit.
The appellee had his election to sue in replevin, or in trespass, for his horses in the one, or damages in the other; and having got his horses in the replevin suit his cause of action in trespass was gone. 6 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 350.
And the ajipellee having himself put in the evidence, any plea by the appellant setting up the defense was unnecessary. Savage v. French, 13 Ill. App. 17.
It does not alter the case if the appellant did (a matter disputed) regain the horses on a retorno habendo. The replevin suit suspended all other remedy. " A personal action once suspended by the act of the party, is gone forever." Wankford v. Wankford, Salk. 392; Lord North v. Butts, Dyer, 139 b.
Contrary to this view of the law the court instructed the jury that, " If, from the other evidence, you shall find the defendant guilty, then the court instructs you that the fact that plaintiff brought his action of replevin and obtained the horses on the writ, and that afterward said replevin suit was dismissed and a writ of retorno habendo ordered and issued in said cause and said horses taken from the plaintiff on said writ of retorno habendo, is not a bar to this action."
It is unnecessary to notice any other question in the case. It is not in our province to advise the appellee whether he has any, and if any, what remedy.
The judgment is reversed, and a finding of facts as a reason for not remanding will be entered here.