Benjamin v. Smith

44 N.W. 1083, 43 Minn. 146, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 130
Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided April 11, 1890·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

The action .for possession of personal property is commenced by the service of summons, as other actions are, and not, as was the former action of replevin, by writ requiring a seizure of the property. The statute (Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 132) leaves it optional with the plaintiff to claim an immediate delivery at the time of issuing the summons, or after that and before answer, or to waive that, and let the action proceed, the possession to be obtained upon execution after judgment. The character of the action is determined by the complaint, and not by the plaintiff claiming, or failing to claim, immediate delivery. If he waive his right to an immediate delivery, the action is not thereby changed to one for conversion merely. The action was therefore properly triable in the county of Bice, and the court correctly denied the motion for a change of venue. The evidence justified the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Benjamin v. Smith, 44 N.W. 1083, 43 Minn. 146, 1890 Minn. LEXIS 130 (Mich. 1890).

44 N.W. 1083 (Benjamin v. Smith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Northern Timber Products Co. v. Stone-Ordean-Wells Co.
173 N.W. 439 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1919)
White v. Flamme
65 N.W. 959 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1896)
Simpson Brick Press Co. v. Marshall
59 N.W. 728 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)