Morrow v. Pryor
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, Judge. An action of replevin cannot be maintained in this State, where the defendant had not possession or control of the goods at the time the writ of replevin was issued. Davis v. Randolph, 3 Mo. App. 454; Rogers v. Davis, 21 Mo. App. 150; Myers v. Lingenfelter, 81 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Clay Circuit Court. — Hon. Joshua W. Alexander, Judge. An action of replevin cannot be maintained in this State, where the defendant had not possession or control of the goods at the time the writ of replevin was issued. Davis v. Randolph, 3 Mo. App. 454; Rogers v. Davis, 21 Mo. App. 150; Myers v. Lingenfelter, 81 Mo. App. 251; Shinn on Replevin, p. 153, par. 164; Cobbey on Replevin (2 Ed.), p. 34, par. 61. If the property was in the possession or under the control of appellant, at the time of the institution of the action of replevin, then the action was well taken. Davis v.…
1Opinion of the CourtBroaddtjs, P. J.
This is an action of replevin for one wagon and thirty bushels of wheat commenced before a justice of the peace. The defendant at the trial disclaimed possession of the wheat at the time the writ was issued, or the right to the possession. The wheat was raised on defendant’s land by his tenants, C. E. and Leonard Taylor. The lease of the Taylors was for one year ending March 1st, 1908, for annual rent of $450.00, payable in money December 15th, 1905. In the fall of 1904, the Taylors borrowed from plaintiff twenty-three bushels of seed wheat, to be repaid at the threshing of wheat in 1905, a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Davis v. RandolphMissouri Court of Appeals · 1877
- Minnesota Thresher Manufacturing Co. v. Grant City Lumber & Hardware Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1899
- Rogers v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by1 opinion
- Emory v. ArnoldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1914