White v. Lokey

Superior Court of Delaware

White v. Lokey

110 A. 560, 30 Del. 598, 7 Boyce 598, 1920 Del. LEXIS 52

CourtSuperior Court of Delaware

DecidedMay 19, 1920

DocketReplevin, No. 98

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A. 560 (White v. Lokey) 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

White v. Lokey, 110 A. 560, 30 Del. 598, 7 Boyce 598, 1920 Del. LEXIS 52 (Del. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Rice, J.:

The Court can find nothing in the evidence which could establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between Lokey, the defendant in the landlord’s warrant, and Porter, the plaintiff in the warrant, and under which warrant the automobile was sold to Harry Willis, one of the defendants in this action. The evidence shows that Lokey arranged with Porter to keep the automobile in question at his, Porter’s, stable, but there is no evidence to show that Lokey rented any part or portion of the stable from Porter. Under such circumstances, Porter did not have the legal right to seize and sell the automobile under and by virtue of a landlord’s warrant, and title thereto did not pass to the purchaser at such sale. We believe there is no evidence in the case to show that any person or persons, except the plaintiffs in this action, were entitled to the immediate possession of the automobile in .question, the subject of this action of replevin

For the reason stated, the jury are instructed to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

Verdict for plaintiffs for six cents.

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

Rice, J.:

The Court can find nothing in the evidence which could establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between Lokey, the defendant in the landlord’s warrant, and Porter, the plaintiff in the warrant, and under which warrant the automobile was sold to Harry Willis, one of the defendants in this action. The evidence shows that Lokey arranged with Porter to keep the automobile in question at his, Porter’s, stable, but there is no evidence to show that Lokey rented any part or portion of the stable from Porter. Under such circumstances, Porter did not have the legal right to seize and sell the automobile under and by virtue of a landlord’s warrant, and title thereto did not pass to the purchaser at such sale. We believe there is no evidence in the case to show that any person or persons, except the plaintiffs in this action, were entitled to the immediate possession of the automobile in .question, the subject of this action of replevin

For the reason stated, the jury are instructed to find a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs.

Verdict for plaintiffs for six cents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A. 560, 30 Del. 598, 7 Boyce 598, 1920 Del. LEXIS 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-lokey-delsuperct-1920.