Cannon v. Matthews
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court. Jeptha H. Evans, Judge. The strawberry plants, after they were sold, became chattels, and were subject of replevin. 87 Cal. 313; 41 111. 466; 32 Kan. 167; 26 Me. 126; 20 Mo. 457; 9 Cow. 40; 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 303; Cobbey, Replevin, § 353; 1 Met. 27; 1 N. J. Eq. 562; 3 Ohio St. 438; 33 Pa. St. 251; 15 Ind. 483; 36 Barb. 415; 33 Pa. St. 251; I Warvelle, Vendors, § 163; 16 Ark. 511.
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, J.
The question involved in this appeal is whether growing strawberry plants attached to the soil can be the subject of replevin. Appellant, who was plaintiff below, sued in replevin for the strawberry plants growing on the land of appellee, claiming the plants under an alleged parol contract for the purchase of same. Defendant answered, denying that he had agreed to sell the plants in controversy to appellant.
At the trial below there was testimony tending to show that appellee had verbally agreed to sell to appellant all the strawberry plants on a certain tract of land, and that, after…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Garth v. CaldwellSupreme Court of Missouri · 1880
- Bostwick v. LeachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1809
- Vulicevich v. SkinnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Smith v. BryanCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1853
- Smock v. SmockMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. BushSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- Simmons v. WillifordSupreme Court of Florida · 1910
- Young v. ChandlerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1906
- Cooper v. KennedyNebraska Supreme Court · 1910
- Gvosdanovic v. HarrisSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.