Nelson ex rel. Haenschen v. Luchtemeyer
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. If the defendants in the execution had no title or interest in the property levied on, they had' no right to the possession of it when replevied; and having neither the right of property nor of possession, were not damaged by the replevin. The decision in Dilworth v..McKelvy, 30 Mo. 149, is based on the fact that defendant had a special interest in the property, and hence a right to possession.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court. If the defendants in the execution had no title or interest in the property levied on, they had' no right to the possession of it when replevied; and having neither the right of property nor of possession, were not damaged by the replevin. The decision in Dilworth v..McKelvy, 30 Mo. 149, is based on the fact that defendant had a special interest in the property, and hence a right to possession. Here defendants have no interest or right of possession. That case authorized recovery by plaintiff to the extent of his interest and no more. • Plaintiff in the…
1Opinion of the CourtCurrier, Judge
This is a replevin suit, and the question for determination arises upon the action of the court in excluding evidence on the hearing of a motion to assess damages for the non-prosecution of the .action with effect.
The suit was brought to recover possession of 200 cords of wood, a cart, grindstone and other property; but for the purposes of- the present inquiry, the suit may be regarded as prosecuted alone to recover the cart, grindstone and wood. As *58to the other property, the plaintiff recovered judgment, and no question arises upon that branch of the case. As to the articles above mentioned,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dilworth v. McKelvySupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
- Gillham v. KeroneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
3Cited by3 opinions
- Young v. GlascockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1883
- Jones v. EvansSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Robbins v. FosterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886