Fell v. Taylor

Superior Court of Delaware

Fell v. Taylor

45 A. 716, 18 Del. 372, 2 Penne. 372, 1900 Del. LEXIS 1

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedFebruary 16, 1900

DocketReplevin No. 32

StatusPublished

This text of 45 A. 716 (Fell v. Taylor) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fell v. Taylor, 45 A. 716, 18 Del. 372, 2 Penne. 372, 1900 Del. LEXIS 1 (Del. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Lore, C. J.:

A motion for a nonsuit in this case has been made, for the reason that the suit is brought by one of two joint owners of the property replevied for the undivided interest therein.

The pleadings and proof show this condition.

[373]*373It is a general rule that all the joint owners of a chattel must join in replevin.

Morris on Replevin, 112.

It may be laid down as a general rule that the plaintiff must show that at the time of the caption he had a general property in the goods taken, and the right of immediate and exclusive possession.

2 Greenleaf on Evidence, Sec. 56; 14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1050.

One tenant in common of a chattel cannot maintain replevin for it without joining his co-tenant.

14 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1050; Reinhemmer vs. Hemingway, 35 Pa. St., 432; Hacker vs. Johnstone, 66 Maine, 21; Kindy vs. Green, 32 Mich., 310; De Wolf vs. Harris, 4 Mason (U. S.), 515; Barns vs. Bartlett, 15 Pick., 71; Wills vs. Noyes, 12 Pick., 324; Frans vs. Young, 24 Ia., 375.

Under the proof in this case and the authorities, therefore, there is no escape from granting a nonsuit.

Let the nonsuit be entered.

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