Robinson & Co. v. Stiner
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Error from Kay County Court; Claude Duval, Judge. Action bj' Robinson & Co. against N. L. Stiner. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
Unless tbe amendment changed substantially the claim of plaintiff, tbe same should have been allowed. Sections 4343 and 4344, Wilson’s Rev. & Ann. St. 1903; Kuchler v. Weaver, 23 Okla. 420, 100 Pac. 920. The gist of the action of replevin is the right to possession, and the declaration or petition must contain an averment that the plaintiff is the owner of the property, or that the title is in him, or that the right of possession is in him at the commencement of the suit. Where the plaintiff is entitled to possession by virtue of a special ownership in the property, he must in his declaration…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Kuchler v. WeaverSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1909
- Z. J. Fort Produce Co. v. Southwestern Grain & Produce Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- A. W. Swope & Son v. Burnham, Hanna, Munger & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1898
- Mulhall v. MulhallSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1895
- Rogers v. HodgsonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kingfisher Mill & Elev. Co. v. WestbrookSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1920
- Homeland Realty Co. v. RobisonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Curtis & Gartside Co. v. PribylSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Murray v. SpeedSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1915
- Coakley v. PhelanSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1935
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.