Moseley v. Cheatham

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Moseley v. Cheatham

34 S.W. 543, 62 Ark. 133, 1896 Ark. LEXIS 147

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 29, 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 S.W. 543 (Moseley v. Cheatham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moseley v. Cheatham, 34 S.W. 543, 62 Ark. 133, 1896 Ark. LEXIS 147 (Ark. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). Replevin was not the remedy for appellee, under the proof in this case. Titsworth v. Frauenthal, 52 Ark. 254; Hart v. Morton, 44 Ark. 447; McKennon v. May, 39 Ark. 442; Person v. Wright, 35 Ark. 169; Ward v. Worthington, 33 Ark. 830.

Appellant was in the lawful possession of the crop, and had the right to retain same until it was divided, and replevin was not the remedy to enforce a division. Nor could appellant be required to surrender possession of the whole upon the payment to him of what his share or interest was worth. However, under the state of case presented by the proof, the appellee had equities which a court of chancery might well enforce. The cause is therefore reversed, with leave to amend the pleadings, and transfer to equity, if desired, and to have the cause disposed of according to the equity practice.

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

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). Replevin was not the remedy for appellee, under the proof in this case. Titsworth v. Frauenthal, 52 Ark. 254; Hart v. Morton, 44 Ark. 447; McKennon v. May, 39 Ark. 442; Person v. Wright, 35 Ark. 169; Ward v. Worthington, 33 Ark. 830.

Appellant was in the lawful possession of the crop, and had the right to retain same until it was divided, and replevin was not the remedy to enforce a division. Nor could appellant be required to surrender possession of the whole upon the payment to him of what his share or interest was worth. However, under the state of case presented by the proof, the appellee had equities which a court of chancery might well enforce. The cause is therefore reversed, with leave to amend the pleadings, and transfer to equity, if desired, and to have the cause disposed of according to the equity practice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.W. 543, 62 Ark. 133, 1896 Ark. LEXIS 147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moseley-v-cheatham-ark-1896.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack