Benjamin v. Smith

Minnesota Supreme Court
Benjamin v. Smith, 43 Minn. 146 (Minn. 1890)
44 N.W. 1083; 1890 Minn. LEXIS 130
Gilfillan

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 3 citing opinions

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

Benjamin v. Smith

Opinion of the Court

Gilfillan, C. J.

The action .for possession of personal property is commenced by the service of summons, as other actions are, and not, as was the former action of replevin, by writ requiring a seizure of the property. The statute (Gen. St. 1878, c. 66, § 132) leaves it optional with the plaintiff to claim an immediate delivery at the time of issuing the summons, or after that and before answer, or to waive that, and let the action proceed, the possession to be obtained upon execution after judgment. The character of the action is determined by the complaint, and not by the plaintiff claiming, or failing to claim, immediate delivery. If he waive his right to an immediate delivery, the action is not thereby changed to one for conversion merely. The action was therefore properly triable in the county of Bice, and the court correctly denied the motion for a change of venue. The evidence justified the verdict.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Flavin Benjamin, Administrator v. Patrick D. Smith
Cited By
3 cases
Status
Published