Perry County Bank v. Rankin

Decision Date11 March 1905
Citation86 S.W. 279
PartiesPERRY COUNTY BANK v. RANKIN.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

McCULLOCH, J.

The complaint in this cause alleges a special ownership in the plaintiff of the property sued for, and sets forth the facts upon which the claim of ownership is based; i. e., the chattel mortgage executed by the defendant, and "that plaintiff is the owner and holder of said note and mortgage for value." The answer contains no denial of the execution of the note and mortgage, nor that the plaintiff is the owner and holder thereof; but it denies generally that plaintiff is the owner or entitled to the possession of the property, and pleads payment of the note secured by the mortgage. No objection was made at the trial to the introduction of the mortgage as evidence of plaintiff's title to the property. Was the assignment of the mortgage an issue in the case?

In replevin suits, where plaintiff claims absolute title to the property sued for, it is only necessary to allege title generally, and right of immediate possession, and the answer may be equally general in its denials; but, where the plaintiff claims possession under a special ownership, he must set forth the facts upon which his claim of special ownership is based. Cobbey on Replevin, § 601; 18 Am. & Eng. P. & P. pp. 537, 538; Tuthill v. Skidmore, 124 N. Y. 148, 26 N. E. 348; Deyerle v. Hunt, 50 Mo. App. 541; Paxton v. Learn, 55 Neb. 459, 75 N. W. 1096; Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Nicholls, 52 Neb. 312, 72 N. W. 217. When the plaintiff alleges a special ownership in the property, the defendant must, in order to put in issue the allegations of such special ownership, deny specifically the allegations of fact upon which the claim of ownership is based. Kirby's Dig. § 6137; Cobby on Replevin, §§ 746, 747; Sargent v. Chapman, 12 Colo. App. 529, 56 Pac. 194.

Counsel for appellee urge that under the ruling of this court in Person v. Wright Montgomery, 35 Ark. 169, it is not necessary for the complaint to contain a statement of facts constituting special ownership, nor for the answer to contain a specific denial thereof. The court in that case said: "It is not necessary for plaintiffs to have shown in their complaint the means by which they acquired title. It would have sufficed to allege their ownership, general or special, their right to the possession, and that defendant unlawfully detained it after...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Moore v. Price
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 23 d1 Abril d1 1934
    ...of the legal title and can maintain replevin on default. He cites and relies on Perry County Bank v. Rankin, 73 Ark. 589, 84 S.W. 725, 86 S.W. 279, Van Pelt v. Russell, 134 Ark. 236, 203 S.W. 267. The statute itself settles this question. It reads as follows: "In the absence of stipulations......
  • Perry County Bank v. Rankin
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 11 d6 Março d6 1905
  • Moore v. Price, 4-3450.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • 23 d1 Abril d1 1934
    ...of the legal title and can maintain replevin on default. He cites and relies on Perry County Bank v. Rankin, 73 Ark. 589, 84 S. W. 725, 86 S. W. 279, and Van Pelt v. Russell, 134 Ark. 236, 203 S. W. 267. The statute itself settles this question. It reads as follows: "In the absence of to th......
  • Faust v. Koers
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 21 d2 Março d2 1905

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT