Brent v. Beck

Decided March 15, 1838

This was a rule to show cause why a writ of replevin, issued in the name of W. L. Brent and Robert J. Brent, against Lambert S. Beck, should not be quashed, because the goods replevied were in the custody of the law.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1946

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1838-03-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The Court,

(Thruston, J.,

¶2absent,) stopped Mr. Brent, who was about to reply, and refused to quash the replevin. Cranch, C. J., observed, that the property did not appear to have been in the custody of the law. Mr. Beck may have done right in taking the goods, but having no warrant therefor, or to arrest Henderson.for theft, his custody was not the custody of the law, so as to make it any contempt of this Court, or of any court, to replevy them.

¶3Buie discharged.