Dearing v. Ford

Citations

• 21 Miss. 269

Syllabus

<p>It is not necessary, in order to the maintenance of the action of replevin under the statute, (Hutch. Code, 817,) even where the original taking was not tortious, that there should have been a demand of the possession before action brought.</p> <p>If, however, no demand be made, and the original possession of the defendant be lawful, he may tender the property to the plaintiff, and, upon its delivery, by proper plea, discharge the action; and the plaintiff might even be adjudged to pay the costs.</p> <p>But if the defendant do not pursue this course, and contest the action, the writ will be a sufficient demand, and defending the suit a refusal.</p> <p>After the jury, in an action of replevin, have rendered their verdict for the plaintiff, but have omitted to assess the separate value of the different pieces of property involved in the suit, and have been discharged, it is error to recall the same jury on the. next day, submit further evidence to them, and allow them to render another verdict assessing the separate value of each article.</p> <p>Whether the statute which authorizes the court, where a verdict in detinue omits price or value, to award a writ of inquiry to ascertain the same, extends to actions of replevin, quiere.</p>