Donnell v. Miller

Decided November 16, 1908

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1908-11-16

— No». William O. Ellison, Judge. Read plaintiff’s petition as you may, you are unable to find any statement therein that the plaintiff had any interest in the property sued for, by ownership or otherwise, and this is an indispensable allegation in actions of replevin. Dillard v. McClure, 64 Mo. App. 491; Benedict and Burnham Mfg. Co. v. Jones, 60 Mo. App. 220; Harmon v. Iden, 88 Mo. App. 315; McCabe v. Black River Transí.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1919

3 state decisions

Relies on Dillard v. McClure · Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co. v. Jones · Harmon v. Iden

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1908-11-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ELLISON, J.

¶1This is an action of replevin begun in the circuit court, in which the plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial court.

¶2The petition does not allege ownership, either general or special, in the plaintiff, and for that reason is fatally defective. It does allege that plaintiff was “lawfully entitled to the possession of,” etc., but that, it seems, has been held not to be sufficient. [Benedict v. Jones, 60 Mo. App. 219.] That case has since been cited in Dillard v. McClure, 64 Mo. App. 488, and Harmon v. Iden, 88 Mo. App. 314. We must therefore hold *694that defendant’s objections, on that account, should have been sustained. The petition should have been amended.

¶3The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.