Neis v. Gillen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL If ROM SEBASTIAN CIRCUIT COURT. - Hon. William Glass, Special Circuit Judge. TIlc proof shows -that the partnership was a special one, and. in such case, one having the right of possession may maintain replevin, though the general title to the property may not he in him.
Read the full summary
APPEAL If ROM SEBASTIAN CIRCUIT COURT. - Hon. William Glass, Special Circuit Judge. TIlc proof shows -that the partnership was a special one, and. in such case, one having the right of possession may maintain replevin, though the general title to the property may not he in him. Prater et al. v. Frazier and -irife, 6. Eng., 249; Cox et al. v. Morrow, 34. Ark., 603. In this view of the case, the court below erred in refusing to give the second, third and fifth instructions moved for appellant. Boynton v. Page., 33. Wend., 425. But on the supposition that the parties were full partners, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Harrison, J.-
This was an action of replevin”for fifty-six head of cattle, founded on the wrongful detention of the same, commenced before the adoption of the Code of Practice. The defendant pleaded non detinet and the jury found the issue thereon for the defendant and assessed his damages at the sum of $1473 12, and the defendant electing, as the record says, to waive a return of the property, judgment was rendered in his favor for the damages assessed. The plaintiff appealed.
The only point in controversy, on the trial, appears by the evidence, preserved by the plaintiff’s bill of exceptions,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Hodges v. NallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1899
- General Electric Credit Corp. v. Bankers Commercial Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1970