Hines v. Allen
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions. Replevin for a colt. Writ dated Oct. 4, 1865. Plea, general issue with brief statement, claiming title in the defendant and denying, title in the plaintiff. It appeared that, on Oct. 2, 1865, the defendant replevied the same colt from one Delano and received possession of the colt from the officer, whereupon Delano, owing the plaintiff $42, sold the colt to the plaintiff for a fair value, and thereupon the plaintiff instituted this suit.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions. Replevin for a colt. Writ dated Oct. 4, 1865. Plea, general issue with brief statement, claiming title in the defendant and denying, title in the plaintiff. It appeared that, on Oct. 2, 1865, the defendant replevied the same colt from one Delano and received possession of the colt from the officer, whereupon Delano, owing the plaintiff $42, sold the colt to the plaintiff for a fair value, and thereupon the plaintiff instituted this suit. The presiding Judge ruled that this action could not be maintained, and ordered a nonsuit, to which ruling the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtKent, J.
It is well settled that when property has been taken from a person by a replevin suit against him and delivered to the plaintiff, the defendant in that suit cannot replevy the property back again, pending the suit, Ilsley v. Stubbs, 5 Mass., 280; Morris v. DeWitt, 5 Wend., 71; Sanborn v. Leavitt, 43 N. H., 475. The reasons for this rule are obvious. Such a course would lead to confusion, multiplicity of suits, and unnecessary complications. It cannot be necessary to vindicate the rights of either party. Those rights can be fully determined in the first suit. It is clear therefore in this…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ilsley v. StubbsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Morris v. De WittNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by1 opinion
- Robinson v. AtterburySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949