Wall v. Rouse

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Wall v. Rouse

1915 OK 1040, 153 P. 1112, 49 Okla. 544, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 81

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedDecember 14, 1915

Docket5966

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1915 OK 1040 (Wall v. Rouse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wall v. Rouse, 1915 OK 1040, 153 P. 1112, 49 Okla. 544, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 81 (Okla. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

*545 THACKER, J.

This was an action in "replevin appealed from a justice’s court to the county court and thence for review to this court. The plaintiff and defendant each claimed ownership and right of immediate possession to the property involved .(two cows and their calves) ; and upon a trial of this issue to a jury in the county court a verdict and judgment for the defendant resulted. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury to the effect that their verdict should be for the defendant unless they should find from a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff, before commencing his action, had demanded of defendant the possession of the property ; the defendant having testified without apparent contradiction that there had been no such demand.

A prior demand is not a condition precedent to a plaintiff’s right of recovery in an action' in replevin, although its absence may entitle a defendant to costs where his original taking was not wrongful and he does not resist the action except as to costs. Hutchings v. Cobble, 30 Okla. 158, 120 Pac. 1013; Maddox v. Howdy, 31 Okla. 169, 120 Pac. 651.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to grant the plaintiff another trial.

All the Justices concur.

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

*545 THACKER, J.

This was an action in "replevin appealed from a justice’s court to the county court and thence for review to this court. The plaintiff and defendant each claimed ownership and right of immediate possession to the property involved .(two cows and their calves) ; and upon a trial of this issue to a jury in the county court a verdict and judgment for the defendant resulted. The trial court erroneously instructed the jury to the effect that their verdict should be for the defendant unless they should find from a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff, before commencing his action, had demanded of defendant the possession of the property ; the defendant having testified without apparent contradiction that there had been no such demand.

A prior demand is not a condition precedent to a plaintiff’s right of recovery in an action' in replevin, although its absence may entitle a defendant to costs where his original taking was not wrongful and he does not resist the action except as to costs. Hutchings v. Cobble, 30 Okla. 158, 120 Pac. 1013; Maddox v. Howdy, 31 Okla. 169, 120 Pac. 651.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed, and the case remanded, with instructions to grant the plaintiff another trial.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1915 OK 1040, 153 P. 1112, 49 Okla. 544, 1915 Okla. LEXIS 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-rouse-okla-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack