Originally Posted by koffee brown
Whoa. Just read through the appeal- no need to provide a link to it.
First of all, the appeal clearly says it has to do with that case. See the comment they put in there that specifically says "This appeal concerns only the order entered for plaintiffs against Markland on count VI of their amended complaint against Goodwill and Markland filed on April 1, 1984, and amended on January 14, 1985".
Add that to the fact this has to do with LOST merchandise, not stolen or abandoned merchandise.
The issues here are not the same as the issues in this one specific case. And as I stated before, it's standard procedure for the city to act when a bicycle is abandoned property- they have a specific procedure that is followed, and if you want to take the bike legally, if you follow up with the city, you should be able to get the bike legally.
Koffee
Goodness. Less coffee, Koffee. I was using the case to give a description of how property is handled in your lovely state, not necessarily applying the specific legal holding of the case to the circumstances in the present matter. These "common law" principles are applied to other cases in Illinois not just the one I cited. As I said, I don't care either way. But if you have to break a lock, it seems like stealing to me.
If you had locked your bike outside when you went overseas earlier this year, I'm assuming you would not have been upset if it were gone when you arrived back home. After all, somebody could have thought the bike was abandoned, left a note that went unanswered, and then taken your bike. Right?