Armour v. Seixas

Citations

• 80 Wash. 181
• 141 P. 308
• 1914 Wash. LEXIS 1268

Syllabus

<p>Appeal—Review—Questions Not Presented Below—Pleadings. In an action of replevin, it is immaterial that the complaint failed to allege that the res was in the county where the action was brought, where it appeared that all the parties resided, and inferentially that all the transactions took place, in that county, and one of the defendants admitted possession, and there was no evidence that the res was not at all times in the county.</p> <p>Replevin—Demand—Necessity-—Pleading and Proof. A non-suit in replevin should not be granted for failure to allege a demand, where the demand was proved; nor for failure to prove a demand upon a defendant claiming the right of possession as owner.</p> <p>Garnishment — Pending Suit — Effect—Stay of Judgment or Execution. Where, after findings for plaintiff in replevin, and pending defendant’s motion for a new trial, the defendant was garnisheed as a debtor of the plaintiff, or as having property in its possession belonging to plaintiff, the defendant should be allowed to show such fact, which, if found to be true, entitled defendant to a stay of judgment or execution to the end that it might protect itself from a double liability for the same debt, until the garnishment was disposed of.</p> <p>Replevin—Value of Property. A finding of the value of the property is essential to sustain a judgment of replevin.</p> <p>Replevin—Value of Property—Evidence. In replevin, an admission of the value of the property, an automobile, several months before it was taken, is not evidence of the value at the time of the taking.</p> <p>Same—Value of Property-—Evidence—Sufficiency. In replevin, a finding of the value of the property is not supported by the uncontroverted affidavit for the writ alleging the value of the property at the time of the taking, where neither the affidavit nor the writ was served on the defendants, and the same value alleged in the complaint was denied in the answer.</p>