Hardy v. Clendening
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. John E. Bennett, Circuit Judge. Replevin in the cepit will lie in any ease where there has been a tortious taking, either originally of by construction of law, by some act which makes the party a trespasser ah initio. It lies in any case where trespass de bonis asportatis will lie. Trapnall v. Hattier, 1 JEng.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Phillips Circuit Court. Hon. John E. Bennett, Circuit Judge. Replevin in the cepit will lie in any ease where there has been a tortious taking, either originally of by construction of law, by some act which makes the party a trespasser ah initio. It lies in any case where trespass de bonis asportatis will lie. Trapnall v. Hattier, 1 JEng. P.,21; Meny v. Heard, 1 Mason, 319. The owner may well bring replevin (in the cepit) against the purchaser, where his property has been sold under execution •against the third person. Dodd v. McCraio, 3 JEng. P., 83; Hicks v. Britt, 21 Ark., 423.…
1Opinion of the CourtMcClure, J.
The defendant in this cause had a judgment against one W. N. Martin, upon which execution issued. The constable levied on a wagon, offered the same for sale, and sold it to Clendening, the plaintiff in execution. At the sale the defendant was notified that the wagon was not the property of "W. N. Martin, the defendant in execution, but that the same belonged to Mrs. L. A. Hardy, the plaintiff in this suit. After the sale, Mrs. Hardy brought an action of replevin, in the cepit, against •Clendening, for the wagon. Upon the writ of replevin, the wagon was taken from the defendant, ’ and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Fonda v. Van HorneNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Allen v. CraryNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Phillips & Brown v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Neff v. ThompsonNew York Supreme Court · 1850