Titsworth v. Frauenthal

12 S.W. 498, 52 Ark. 254
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMay 15, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 S.W. 498 (Titsworth v. Frauenthal) 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
Titsworth v. Frauenthal, 12 S.W. 498, 52 Ark. 254 (Ark. 1889).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Replevin : For interest in crop. The plaintiff’s title to the two bales of cotton replevied, was no greater than to the other bales of the same lot. The landlord’s lien was extinguished, as the court held, by the transfer of the cotton upon which the lien existed, but the title of the landlord to an undivided interest in the cotton, equal in value to the amount of the lien extinguished, became absolute by his purchase. As to the remaining interest, he was only a purchaser whose rights were subject, to the mortgage. But the mortgagee had not a superior title to any particular part of the lot of cotton, but at most was only an owner in common with the landlord.

Replevin cannot be resorted to as a means of partitioning property held in common. Hart v. Morton, 44 Ark., 447, and cases there cited. Ward v. Worthington, 33 ib., 830.

It was error therefore to allow the action to be maintained.

Reverse and remand.

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

Related

Garrett v. McAtee
115 S.W.2d 1092 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1938)
Vermont Loan & Trust Co. v. Cardin
53 P. 164 (Washington Supreme Court, 1898)
Moseley v. Cheatham
34 S.W. 543 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 S.W. 498, 52 Ark. 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/titsworth-v-frauenthal-ark-1889.