Ralston v. Black

Replevin. The answer does not specifically deny that plaintiff owned the property in controversy. Nor is there a similar denial of his right to the possession. The defense, for the most part, seems to have been placed upon the ground that defendant never interfered with plaintiff’s possession; or never had such control or custody of the property, as to make him liable in this action.

From the testimony, the Court below was justified in finding the following facts: 1. That plaintiff owned the property, consisting of' wheat and oats, in a stack upon a farm rented by the father, James, and…