Upham v. Allen
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker,. Judge. (1) The rule as to plaintiffs’ right of recovery is stated too broadly and applied too severely. “In order to maintain the action of replevin the plaintiff must show the right of exclusive possession in himself as against the defendant in the action.” 20 Am. and Eng. Ency of Law, p. 1050. This last statement of the rule is recognized as the correct one in the adjudicated cases. Burns v. Lidwell, 6 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Linn Circuit Court. — Hon. W. W. Rucker,. Judge. (1) The rule as to plaintiffs’ right of recovery is stated too broadly and applied too severely. “In order to maintain the action of replevin the plaintiff must show the right of exclusive possession in himself as against the defendant in the action.” 20 Am. and Eng. Ency of Law, p. 1050. This last statement of the rule is recognized as the correct one in the adjudicated cases. Burns v. Lidwell, 6 Mo. App. 192; Pollock v. Bouglas, 56 Mo. App. 492; Gardiier, Adm., v. Morrison, 12 Ala. 547; Sprague v. Clark, 41 Yt. 6; Sperry v.…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.
This is an action which was brought to recover the possession of certain specific personal property consisting of a stock of merchandise. There was a trial by the court without the intervention of a jury, which resulted in a finding and judgment for the defendants, to reverse which judgment plaintiffs have appealed.
STATEMENT.
At the very threshold of the controversy here the defendants insist that if every error which the plaintiffs have assigned was sustained, that yet the judgment will have to be affirmed because it is disclosed by the evidence presented by the record that the plaintiff was…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pier v. HeinrichoffenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1873
- Gray v. ParkerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Seibert v. AllenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Spooner v. RossMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- Thieman v. GoodnightMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Steckman v. Galt State BankMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Wyeth Hardware Co. v. Carthage Hardware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Connersville Buggy Co. v. LowryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903