Carpenter v. Glass
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The appellee brought replevin against the appellant, and recovered judgment for fifteen “barrels of Superior Patent Flour in wood barrels, and twenty barrels of Baker’s Extra Flour in one-eighth sacks,” or, in default of the return thereof, $195.00, the value of the said flour. From this judgment Carpenter appealed to this court.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. The appellee brought replevin against the appellant, and recovered judgment for fifteen “barrels of Superior Patent Flour in wood barrels, and twenty barrels of Baker’s Extra Flour in one-eighth sacks,” or, in default of the return thereof, $195.00, the value of the said flour. From this judgment Carpenter appealed to this court. The cause came on for trial in the circuit court of Jackson county at its January term, 1898. Appellee, Glass, testified: “Sometime about August 10th, Captain Day, a traveling man, came through here…
1Opinion of the Court
Hughes, J.,
(after stating the facts.) “To maintain replevin for goods, the plaintiff must not only have title, general or special, in them, but must be entitled to immediate possession thereof.” Thatcher v. Franklin, 37 Ark. 66.
It appears from the evidence that the appellee contracted with the agent of Winkler & Lupkes to buy of them the flour in controversy on 30 days’ time, and that they sent appellee the bill of the articles, and consigned the goods to Carpenter, | with other barrels and sacks of flour of the same brand and | quality, and that, before the goods were delivered to the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- New England Dressed Meat & Wool Co. v. Standard Worsted Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
- Ober v. Carson'sSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Pleasants v. PendletonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1828
- Russell v. . CarringtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Mackellar v. PillsburySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Sherrill Hardwood Lumber Co. v. H. D. Glass Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Ware v. Shoemaker-Bale Auto Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- McWhirter v. PennySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907