Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

30 Mo. App. 580

Baird v. Taylor

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 24, 1888

Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1888-04-24

John G. Wear, Judge. In this case-since the plaintiffs already had the cotton, when the officer should execute this judgment he would be compelled to collect from the defendant the value of the-cotton, as it was impossible to take the cotton from the defendant and deliver it to plaintiffs.

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1972

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and judgment · Decided 1888-04-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Peers, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2This is an action in replevin for one bale of lint cotton of the value of forty-six dollars, commenced before a justice of the peace in Dunklin county. The plaintiffs had judgment and the defendant appealed to the circuit court where, upon trial, the court rendered judgment for plaintiffs for the recovery of the bale of cotton replevied, or in lieu thereof the sum of forty-six dollars, the value of said cotton, together with their ■costs and charges.

¶3The record before us contains no bill of exceptions, no such bill being offered or filed by the appellants, or signed and allowed by the court, as required by statute.

¶4It is evident from an examination of the record that the judgment of the lower court is erroneous in this : It is for the recovery of the property, or in lieu thereof the assessed value of the property. This would be correct if the property were in the possession of the defendant, but being in possession of the plaintiffs, this rule does not apply.

“ If the defendant have not the property in possession, the court or jury shall assess the damages (for the wrongful detention) and the judgment shall be against the defendant and his securities for the damages so assessed, and costs of suit.” Rev. Stat., sec. 3857.

¶5*582The possession of the property in this case was with the plaintiffs, and the judgment being for them, they were entitled to retain the same, and to- have-judgment for such amount as the evidence shows- they were-damaged by reason of the wrongful detention of the property by the defendant.

¶6As no good reason exists why the- case should be remanded, the judgment of the circuit court will be reversed, and judgment entered in. this-court for plaintiffs for the possession of the property and one cent damages for the wrongful detention thereof.

¶7All the judges concurring, it is so ordered.

/30/moapp/580 · .json · Public domain