Clifford Banking Co. v. Bankhead, 51725

• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
• Writing for the Court: STEPHAN; GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER
• Citation: 738 S.W.2d 948
• Parties: CLIFFORD BANKING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Mike BANKHEAD and Janet Bankhead, Defendants-Appellants.
• Docket Number: No. 51725,51725
• Decision Date: 27 October 1987

Page 948

738 S.W.2d 948 CLIFFORD BANKING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Mike BANKHEAD and Janet Bankhead, Defendants-Appellants. No. 51725. Missouri Court of Appeals,
Eastern District,
Division Four. Oct. 27, 1987.

David Wayne Suddarth, Troy, for defendants-appellants.

James J. Virtel, Ann E. Buckley, St. Louis, for plaintiff-respondent.

STEPHAN, Judge.

Defendants appeal from a judgment for plaintiff in this action to replevy 67 head of cattle. They claim that defects in the procedure by which plaintiff obtained pre-judgment possession of the cattle deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to entertain plaintiff's suit and that the jury's failure to render a verdict on defendants' counterclaim for conversion of the cattle requires reversal. We affirm.

I

In finding for plaintiff on its replevin claim, the jury determined that on December 31, 1984, defendants possessed cattle that they had pledged as security for promissory notes held by plaintiff, that defendants were in default on these notes, and that, accordingly, plaintiff's right to possess the cattle was superior to that of defendants. Defendants do not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence which supports the jury's verdict. They assert, however, that defects in the procedure by which plaintiff obtained pre-judgment possession of the cattle deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to entertain the substantive replevin suit and that the judgment must therefore be held for naught. We disagree.

Though the pre-judgment possession provisions of the replevin statutes ¹ are designed to aid a plaintiff in the prosecution of his substantive replevin suit, the

Page 949

suit may be prosecuted to judgment regardless of whether pre-judgment possession of the chattel is obtained. See State ex rel Williams v. Berrey, 492 S.W.2d 731, 734 (Mo. banc 1973). Similarly, defects in the procedure by which a plaintiff obtains pre-judgment possession of chattels do not taint the underlying suit, nor do they deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction. See State ex rel Tallen v. Marsh, 633 S.W.2d 458, 462 (Mo.App.1982); Associates Financial Services Company, Inc. v. Salky, 510 S.W.2d 41, 43 (Mo.App.1974).

Defendants raise no other challenge to the circuit court's jurisdiction. The jury has determined that plaintiff, not defendants, had a superior right to possess the cattle at the time this suit was filed, and defendants do not challenge this determination. Accordingly, any...