Jefferson v. Dunavant

Decided April 12, 1890

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1890-04-12

J. E. Riddick, Judge. In 1882 Dunavant bought a mule from Grandison Boyd. Before delivery of possession, the mule was replevied from Boyd by Jefferson. The replevin suit was decided in favor •of Boyd. Jefferson then sued on a note given for the purchase money of the mule and obtained an order of attachment to enforce his vendor’s lien on the mule. Dunavant intervened, claiming the property under his purchase.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently October 1899

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1890-04-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The record does not show that Dunavant was allowed to interplead for the mule in the replevin suit of Jefferson against Boyd. No judgment rendered therein could therefore affect his rights.

¶2He interpleaded for the mule in the attachment suit by Jefferson against Boyd, and it is argued that damages for the detention of the mule could have been assessed in that case, and that the failure to do so is a bar to any further action for damages. The statute authorizing intervention in such cases contemplates only the trial of the right of property or of the claimant’s interest therein. When determined in his favor, the court is directed to “make such order as may be necessary to protect his rights’’ (Mansf. Dig., sec, 358), but that can refer only to the protection of the right the jury has tried, not the award of damages.

¶3Affirm.