Worthen v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Worthen v. Thompson

15 S.W. 192, 54 Ark. 151, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 16

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 24, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 S.W. 192 (Worthen v. Thompson) 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

Worthen v. Thompson, 15 S.W. 192, 54 Ark. 151, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 16 (Ark. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Hemingway, J.

1. Replevin —Stolen property. One in possession of stolen property cannot hold it against the rightful owner, or exact as a condition of its surrender the payment of money which such holder paid to obtain it, although he made such payment in good faith with no knowledge of the theft. The sum thus paid is not an expense incurred in the preservation of the property, and for that reason, if for no other, it does not come within the purview of the statutes of this State that regulate in certain cases the disposition of stolen property. Mans. Dig., secs. 2416-19.

t¡on Considera" A promise by such holder to surrender the stolen property to its owner, being an undertaking* to do only what the law exacts, is not a consideration that will support a promise to pay money therefor. 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 831, and cases cited ; Killough v. Payne, 52 Ark., 174.

The answer disclosed no defense to the action, and the judgment will be affirmed.

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

Hemingway, J.

1. Replevin —Stolen property. One in possession of stolen property cannot hold it against the rightful owner, or exact as a condition of its surrender the payment of money which such holder paid to obtain it, although he made such payment in good faith with no knowledge of the theft. The sum thus paid is not an expense incurred in the preservation of the property, and for that reason, if for no other, it does not come within the purview of the statutes of this State that regulate in certain cases the disposition of stolen property. Mans. Dig., secs. 2416-19.

t¡on Considera" A promise by such holder to surrender the stolen property to its owner, being an undertaking* to do only what the law exacts, is not a consideration that will support a promise to pay money therefor. 3 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 831, and cases cited ; Killough v. Payne, 52 Ark., 174.

The answer disclosed no defense to the action, and the judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 S.W. 192, 54 Ark. 151, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/worthen-v-thompson-ark-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack