Calvert v. Stewart
This text of 4 F. Cas. 1084 (Calvert v. Stewart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
thought, that by hiring out the property, and suffering it to be taken out of the State of Maryland, the plaintiff lost his lien; that his action of replevin admits that he lost the possession, and that with the possession his lien ceased. That the distress was, in its nature, a local remedy, confined to the territory and jurisdiction of Maryland, and which could not be enforced here.
At first, without recollecting the statute, (11 Geo. 2, c. 19, § 19,) he thought that the plaintiff, by hiring out the distress, and sending it out of the county and State, was a trespasser ab initio, and could not justify under the distress; but upon recollecting that statute, he retracted that part of his opinion ; but still held, that although trespass may be maintained upon possession alone, yet replevin cannot without a title either general or special. See Williamson v. Ringgold, in this Court, at December term, 1829; Meany v. Head, 1 Mason, 322, Mr. Justice Story’s Opinion ; Stat. 52, H. 3, c. 4; 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Distress, D.; Gilbert on Replevins, 157, 164; Gardner v. Campbell, 15 Johns. 401; 2 Wheat. Selwyn, 896.
Verdict for the plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
4 F. Cas. 1084, 4 D.C. 728, 4 Cranch 728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calvert-v-stewart-circtddc-1836.