Moriarty v. Stofferan
Illinois Supreme Court
Moriarty v. Stofferan, 89 Ill. 528 (Ill. 1878)
Dickey
Moriarty v. Stofferan
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court:
In an action of replevin it is essential that the plaintiff should be entitled to the possession of the property at the time when the writ is sued out. Assuming the plaintiff’s version of the facts to be true, he was not entitled to the possession of this property at' the time that he commenced his action. If his allegations be true, he undoubtedly had a right to rescind the contract by offering to return the note. He, however, was not in a condition to bring his action until he had offered to return the note and demanded the property.
The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.
Judgment reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Ambrose Moriarty v. Paul Stofferan
- Cited By
- 11 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Replevin—plaintiff must have right of possession. In an action of replevin, it is essential that the plaintiff should be entitled to the possession of the property at the time when the writ is sued out. 2. Where a party is induced to sell property and take a note of the purchaser, and another, upon false and fraudulent representations as to the amount of property owned by the security, he may rescind the contract by offering to return the note, but he can not maintain replevin for the property sold until he does do so, and demands the property.