Determine

To come to an end. To bring to an end.

2 Bla. Com. 121; 1 Washb. R. P. 3S0.

DETINET (Lat. detinere, to detain; detinet, he detains). In Pleading. An action of debt is said to be in the detinet when it is alleged merely that the defendant withholds or unjustly detains from the plaintiff the thing or amount demanded. The action is so brought by an executor, 1 Wms. Saund. 1; and so between the contracting parties when for the recovery of such things as a ship, horse, etc.; 3 Bla. Com. 156. An action of replevin is said to be in the detinet when the defendant 'retains possession of the property until after judgment in the action; Bull. N. P. 52; Chit. PI.

145.

It is said that anciently there was a form of writ adapted to bringing the action in this form; but it is not to be found in any of the books; 1 Chit. PL 145.' In some of the states the defendant is allowed to retain possession upon giving a bond similar to that required of the plaintiff in the common-law form; the action is then in the detinet; 3 Sharsw.

Bla. Com. 146, n.; Bower v. Tallman, 5 W. & S. (Pa.) 556; Beebe v. De Baun, 8 Ark. 510; Zachrisson v. Ahman, 2 Sandf. (N. Y.) 68; Ingalls v. Bulkley, 13 111. 315; Boswell v. Green, 25 N. J. L. 390.

The jury are to find the value of the chattels in such case, as well as the damage sustained. See- Debet et Detinet; Detintjit. DETINUE (Lat. detinere, to withhold). In Practice. A form of action which lies for the recovery, in specie, of personal chattels from one whp acquired possession of them lawfully but retains it without right, together with damages for the detention.

3 Bla. Com. 151.

It is generally laid down as necessary to the maintenance of this action that the orignal taking should have been lawful, thus distinguishing it from retaking, except as a distress, and that it Is thus distinguished from replevin, which lay originally only where a distress was made, as was claimed, wrongfully; 1 Chit. PI.

112. See 3 Sharsw. Bla. Com. 152.

In England this action has yielded to the more practical and less technical action trover, but was formerly much used for the recovery of slaves; Kent v. Armistead, 4 Munf. (Va.) 72; Hansen's Adm'r v. Israel, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 510; Hooper's Adm'r v. Hooper, 1 Ov. (Tenn.) 187; Foscue v. Eubank, 32 N. C. 424. In detinue these points are necessary: L The plaintiff must have property in the thing sought to be recovered.

2.

He must have the right to its immediate possession.

3.

It must he capable of identification.

4.

That the property be of some value.

5.

The defendant must have had possession at some time prior to the institution of the action.

Hefner v. Fuller, 58 W. Va. 159, 52 S. E. 513, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 13S, 112 Am. St. Rep. 961.

The action lies only to recover such goods as are capable of being identified and distinguished from all others; Audr. Steph. PL 79, n.; Com. Dig. Detinue, B, C; Co. Litt. 2S6 b; Lewis v. Hoover, 1 J. J. Marsh. (Ky.) 500, 19 Am. Dec. 120; Hail v. Reed, 15 B. Monr. (Ky.) 479; Wright v. Ross, 2 G. Greene (la.) 266; Goff v. Gott, 5 Sneed. (Tenn.) 562; in cases where the defendant had originally lawful possession, which he retains without right; Melton v. Mc Donald, 2 Mo. 45, 22 Am. Dec. 437; Spaulding v. Scanland, 4 B. Monr. (Ky.) 365; Stoker v. Yerby, 11 Ala. 322; as where goods were delivered for application to a specific purpose; 4 B. & P. 140; but a tort in taking may be waived, it is said, and detinue brought; Owings v. Frier, 2 A. K. Marsh. (Ky.) 268, 12 Am. Dec. 393; Schulenberg v. Campbell, 14 Mo. 491; O'Neill v. Henderson, 15 Ark. 235, 60 Am. Dec. 568. That it lies whether the taking was tortious or not, see Beazley v. Mitchell, 9 Ala. 780; Overfield v. Bullitt, 1 Mo. 749. It may be maintained for the recovery of a policy of insurance where it has been paid for, but is withheld by the agent; Robinson v. Peterson, 40 111. App. 132; or to recover a promissory note; Hefner v. Fidler, 58 W. Va. 159, 52 S. E. 513, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 138, 112 Am. St. Rep. 961; Brown v. Pollard, 89 Va. 696, 17 S. E. 6. The property must be in existence at the time; Caldwell v. Fenwick, 2 Dana (Ky.) 332; Lindsey v. Perry, 1 Ala. 203; Bethea v. Mc Lennon, 23 N. C. 523; see Haile v. Hill, 13 Mo. 612; but need not be in the possession of the defendant; Pool v. Adkisson, 1 Dana (Ky.) 110; Haley v. Rowan, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 301, 26 Am. Dec. 268; Gaines v. Harvin, 19 Ala. 491; Barksdale. v. Appleberry, 23 Mo. 389; Easley's Ex'rs v. Easley, 18 B. Monr. (Ky.) 86. The plaintiff must have had actual possession, or a right to immediate possession; Melton v. Mc Donald, 2 Mo. 45, 22 Am. Dec. 437; Burnley v. Lambert, 1 Wash. (Va.) 308; Smart v. Clift,, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 518; 168; Hughes v. Jones, 2 Md. Ch. Dec. 178; but ft special property, as that of a bailee, with actual possession at the time of delivery to the defendant, is sufficient; 2 Wins. Saund. 47 b; Boyle v. Townes, 9 Leigh (Vn.i 158; Spaulding v. Scanland, 4 B. Monr. (Ky. Melton v. Mc Donald, 2 Mo. 45, 22 Am. Dec 437; Bryan v. Smith, 22 Ala. 534. A mere equitable claim reserved by a vendor on the sale of personal property for the unpaid purchase money, Is not sufficient title to authorize a recovery in detinue; Lucas v. I'ittman, Pi Ala. 616, 10 South. 603. Hither want of title in the plaintiff or the absence of possession in defendant, when the action was it. will prevent plaintiffs recovery, as constructive possession in defendant from the fact that he bad the title is not sufficient; Burns v. Morrison, 36 W. Va. 423, 15 S. 11 62. A demand is not requisite except to entitle the plaintiff to da between demand and the commencement of the action; Cole v. Cole's Adin'r, 4 Bibb (Ky.) 340; Schulenberg v. Campbell. 11 Mo. 401; Jones v. Henry..", Pitt. (Ky.) 40; Mortimer v. Brumfield, 3 Munf. (Va.) 122; Dunn v. Davis, 12 Ala. 135; Eastman v. Burke County Com'rs, 114 N. C. 524, 19 S. B. 599. The declaration may state a bailment or trover; though a simple allegation thai the goods came to the defendant's hands is sufficient; Brooke, Abr. Detinue, 10. The bailment or trover alleged is not traversable; Brooke, Abr. Detinue, 1, 2,.",0. It must describe the property with accuracy; Felt v. Williams, 1 Scam. (111.) 206; March v. Leckie, 35 X. C. 172. 55 Am. Dec, 431; Wright v. Ross. 2 Greene (la.) 266. The pica of non dettnet is the general issue, audi special matter may be given in evidence under it; Co. Litt 283; 16 E. L. & Eq. 514; Stratton v. Minnis, 2 Munf. (Va.) 329; Morrow v. Hatfield, 6 Bumphr. (Tenn.) 108; Lucas v. Liftman, 94 Ala. 616, 10 South. Cm:;; including title in a third person; Tanner v. Allison, 3 Dana (Ky.) -122; Mc Curry v. Hooper, 12 Ala. 823. 40 Am. Dec 280; eviction, or accidental loss by a bailee; Rucker v. Hamilton, 3 Dana (Ky.) 3d. The plea of not guilty is not appropriate; Robii Peterson, 40 111. App. 132. The defendant in this action frequently prayed garnishment of a third person, who he alleged owned or bad an Interest in the thing demanded; but tins he could not do without confessing the possession of the thing demanded, and making privity of bailment; Brooke. Abr. Garnishment, l, Interpleader, 3. If the prayer of garnishment was allowed, a sri. fa. issued against the person named as garnishee. If be made default, the plaintiff recovered against the defendant the chattel demanded, hut no damages. If the garnishee appeared, and the plaintiff made default, the garnishee recovered. If both aptel demanded, and a distringas in execution; and against the gai a judgment for damages, and a ft. fa. in execution. The Judgment is in the alternative that the plaintiff recover the the value thereof if be cannot have the property itself; Haynes v. < 1. 7 Ala. 189: Carland v. Bugg, 5 Munf. i \ lei v. r, 1 Bibb (Ky. > 484; Th Thompson's Ex'rs, 7 P. Monr. (Ky.) 421; Waite v. Dolby, S Bumphr. (Tenn.) Mulliken v. Creer, 5 Mo. 489; Murphy v. Moore, 39 X. O. 118; Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 Gratt I \'a. i 343; Blakely's Adm'r v. can, 4 Tex. 184; Arthur v. [ngles, 31 \V. Va.