Parvis v. Truax
Supreme Court of Delaware
Writ of Error to Superior Court, Kent County.* At the trial of this cause, at the April Term, A. D. 1886, it was proved by Samuel P. Truax that William H. Grasley, some time prior to the 18th day of April, A. D. 1884, informed him, the said Truax, that he wanted to buy of him a certan horse, and that he, the said Truax, informed him that he would take one hundred and fifty dollars for the said horse.
Read the full summary
Writ of Error to Superior Court, Kent County.* At the trial of this cause, at the April Term, A. D. 1886, it was proved by Samuel P. Truax that William H. Grasley, some time prior to the 18th day of April, A. D. 1884, informed him, the said Truax, that he wanted to buy of him a certan horse, and that he, the said Truax, informed him that he would take one hundred and fifty dollars for the said horse. That on the 18th day of April, A. D. 1884, the said William H. Grasley went to the home of the said Truax and renewed the treaty for the purchase of said horse. That said Truax ‘then told said…
1Opinion of the CourtHouston, J.
The main question presented in this case is whether an action of replevin for a horse wrongfully taken and detained by the defendant below from the plaintiff below, on a demand made by him for the possession of it, is a local or a transitory action in the Courts of this State ? At common law in England it was ruled as early as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, at least, that the action of replevin is a local action, and that it is necessary to allege in the declaration in it the place of taking, as well as the vill or parish^ otherwise the defendant may demur; but the omission is cured by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Frick v. MillerSuperior Court of Delaware · 1918
- Mills Novelty Co. v. TranseauSuperior Court of Delaware · 1937
- Allstate Insurance v. Rossi Auto Body, Inc.Superior Court of Delaware · 2000