Myers v. Lingenfelter & Hudson
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Worth Circuit Court. — Hon. P. O. Stepp, Judge. (1) In an action of replevin the plaintiff can not recover unless it is shown on the trial that the property was in the possession of the defendants at the date of the issue of the writ of summons. R. S. 1889, sec. 6185; Penn v. Brashear, 65 Mo. App. 24; Davis v. Randolph, 3 Mo. App. 454; Gulath v. Waldstein, 7 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Worth Circuit Court. — Hon. P. O. Stepp, Judge. (1) In an action of replevin the plaintiff can not recover unless it is shown on the trial that the property was in the possession of the defendants at the date of the issue of the writ of summons. R. S. 1889, sec. 6185; Penn v. Brashear, 65 Mo. App. 24; Davis v. Randolph, 3 Mo. App. 454; Gulath v. Waldstein, 7 Mo. App. 66. (2) This action is an ordinary suit in replevin for certain brick, but on the trial of the cause the plaintiff abandoned his replevin and sought to recover for conversion. Wright v. Eonda, 44 Mo. App. 634-642;…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is an action of replevin wherein it is sought to recover the possession of a lot of brick. Plaintiff prevailed in the trial court.
The defendants are attorneys-at-law and as such had a claim of 0. M. Jenks for collection against one Eattig. They procured judgment on the claim and afterwards took a chattel mortgage on a lot of brick in a kiln to secure its payment. Plaintiff claimed to own the brick in controversy, having had them taken out of said kiln and set apart for himself. Defendants, as representatives of Jenks, and so known to be by plaintiff, demanded possession of the brick…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Penn v. BrashearMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896
3Cited by2 opinions
- Maloney v. NevilleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908
- Kimble v. McDermottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911