Lisenby v. Phelps
Decision Date | 30 April 1880 |
Citation | 71 Mo. 522 |
Parties | LISENBY v. PHELPS, Appellant. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Webster Circuit Court.--HON. R. W. FYAN, Judge.
REVERSED.
F. S. Heffernan for appellant.
J. R. Edwards for respondent.
This was an action of replevin for certain abstract books. It appears from the record that at the date of the alleged caption, the plaintiff and defendant were joint owners of the books in question. As the plaintiff was not entitled to the immediate and exclusive possession of the books, he cannot maintain this action. Gray v. Parker, 38 Mo. 160; Cross v. Hulett, 53 Mo. 397. The judgment will be reversed, and the cause remanded.
The other judges concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Drainage Dist. No. 1 of Bates County v. Bates County
... ... assessment, the remedy provided is exclusive. Carondalet ... v. Picot, 3 Mo. 125; State ex rel. v. Snyder, ... 139 Mo. 549; Phelps v. Brumback, 107 Mo.App. 25; ... State ex rel. v. Trust Co., 209 Mo. 493; Clinton ... v. Henry County, 115 Mo. 557; Chandler v ... ...
-
Bauer v. Weber Implement Company
... ... right of immediate and exclusive possession. Groves v ... Parker, 38 Mo. 160; Garlside v. Nixon, 43 Mo ... 139; Lisenby v. Phelps, 71 Mo. 522; Hardware Co ... v. Hdw. Co., 75 Mo.App. 522; Westby v ... Milligan, 89 Mo.App. 294; Bank v. Snyder, 85 ... Mo.App ... ...
-
Pulliam v. Burlingame
...that neither is entitled to the immediate and exclusive possession of such property.” Cross v. Hulett, 53 Mo. 397. Se also Lisenby v. Phelps, 71 Mo. 522; Coke on Littleton, p. 200, note a; Russell v. Allen, 13 N. Y. 173; Davis v. Lattich, 46 N. Y. 397; Prentice v. Lobb, 12 Conn. 330; Kindy ......
-
Yoakum v. Davis
... ... co-owner. Gray v. Parker, 38 Mo. 160; Cross v ... Hulett, 53 Mo. 397; Lisonby v. Phelps, 71 Mo ... 522; Pulliam v. Burlingame, 81 Mo. 111; Ingals ... v. Ferguson, 138 Mo. 358; Upham v. Allen, 73 ... Mo.App. 228; Miller v. Crigler, 83 ... ...