Jefferson v. Dunavant
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Mississippi Circuit Court. J. E. Riddick, Judge. In 1882 Dunavant bought a mule from Grandison Boyd. Before delivery of possession, the mule was replevied from Boyd by Jefferson. The replevin suit was decided in favor •of Boyd. Jefferson then sued on a note given for the purchase money of the mule and obtained an order of attachment to enforce his vendor’s lien on the mule. Dunavant intervened, claiming the property under his purchase.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Mississippi Circuit Court. J. E. Riddick, Judge. In 1882 Dunavant bought a mule from Grandison Boyd. Before delivery of possession, the mule was replevied from Boyd by Jefferson. The replevin suit was decided in favor •of Boyd. Jefferson then sued on a note given for the purchase money of the mule and obtained an order of attachment to enforce his vendor’s lien on the mule. Dunavant intervened, claiming the property under his purchase. The issue was determined in Dunavant’s favor, and the mule delivered to him. Thereafter he instituted an action against Jefferson to recover…
1Per curiam
The record does not show that Dunavant was allowed to interplead for the mule in the replevin suit of Jefferson against Boyd. No judgment rendered therein could therefore affect his rights.
He interpleaded for the mule in the attachment suit by Jefferson against Boyd, and it is argued that damages for the detention of the mule could have been assessed in that case, and that the failure to do so is a bar to any further action for damages. The statute authorizing intervention in such cases contemplates only the trial of the right of property or of the claimant’s interest therein. When determined…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Swift & Co. v. RussellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1899