Lathrop v. Cook
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Smith J. presiding. The action was replevin lor a pair of oxen. The defence was, that he did not taire the oxen, and that they were not the property of the plaintiff. The property of the plaintiff in the oxen was folly proved, and that the defendant, as a deputy sheriff, had attached them, as the property of one Harding, on a writ against him in favor of one Libby.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the Court of Common Pleas, Smith J. presiding. The action was replevin lor a pair of oxen. The defence was, that he did not taire the oxen, and that they were not the property of the plaintiff. The property of the plaintiff in the oxen was folly proved, and that the defendant, as a deputy sheriff, had attached them, as the property of one Harding, on a writ against him in favor of one Libby. It was alfo proved, that the oxen were in the possession of the plaintiff, when they were attached by the defendant, and were never removed, and continued in the plaintiff’s possession…
1Opinion of the Court
After a continuance, the opinion of the Court was prepared by
Shepuet J.
The object of the writ of replevin is to redeliver goods and chattels, or to restore the possession of them, to the person who has the general or special property in them. The statute prescribing the forms of writs, ch. 63, sec. 8, requires the allegation to be made in the writ of replevin, not only that the defendant took the goods, but that he has “ them unlawfully detained to this day.” It appears from the bill of exceptions, that the defendant never had the actual possession of the goods alleged in the writ to have…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Learned v. BryantMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1816
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barron v. CobleighSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1841
- Colbath v. HoeferOregon Supreme Court · 1903