Anderson v. Gouldberg
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1905, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Payne v. TK Auto Wholesalers (Conn. App. Ct. 2006)
- United States v. Samad Haqq (2d Cir. 2002)
- Wolfenbarger v. Williams (10th Cir. 1987)
- Wolfenbarger v. Williams (10th Cir. 1987)
- State Ex Rel. Hayashi v. Ronald (Wash. 1925)
- McCarthy v. Fuller (District Court, S.D. Indiana 2012)
- United States v. Nick S. Boscarino (7th Cir. 2006)
- United States v. Boscarino, Nick S. (7th Cir. 2006)
- Hall v. Schoenwetter (Conn. 1996)
- Hall v. Schoenwetter, No. 30 75 14 (Oct. 3, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
- Government of the Virgin Islands v. George Edwards (3d Cir. 1990)
- Novak v. State (Md. 1950)
- Morris Plan Industrial Bank of New York v. Schorn (2d Cir. 1943)
- United States v. Jensen (District Court, E.D. New York 1923)
- Peru Plow & Implement Co. v. Harker (8th Cir. 1906)
- Casto v. Murray (Or. 1905)
- Stitt v. Namakan Lumber Co. (Minn. 1905)
- People v. Wilson (N.Y. 1999)
- Berger v. 34th Street Garage, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1948)
- New England Box Co. v. C & R Construction Co. (Mass. 1943)
- Jensen v. Eagle Ore Co. (Colo. 1910)
- Moyer v. Ann Arbor Railroad (Mich. 1910)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is settled by the verdict of the jury that the logs in controversy were not cut upon the land of the defendants* and consequently that they were entire strangers to the property.
For the purposes of this appeal, we must also assume the fact to be (as there was evidence from which the jury might have so found) that the plaintiffs obtained possession of the logs in the first instance by trespassing upon the land of some third party.
Therefore the only question is whether bare possession of prop-' erty, though wrongfully obtained, is sufficient title to enable the party enjoying it to maintain replevin against a mere stranger, who takes it from him. We had supposed that this was settled in the* affirmative as long ago, at least, as the early ease of Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange, 505, so often cited on that point.
When it is said that to maintain replevin the plaintiff’s posset sion must have been lawful, it means merely that it must have beer lawful as against the person who deprived him of it; and possess
Counsel says that possession only raises a presumption of title, which, however, may be rebutted. Rightly understood, this is correct ; but counsel misapplies it. One who takes property from the possession of another can only rebut this presumption by showing a superior title in himself, or in some way connecting himself with one who has. ) One who has acquired the possession of property, whether by finding, bailment, or by mere tort, has a right to retain that possession as against a mere wrongdoer who is a stranger to /the property;. Any other rule would lead to an endless series of unlawful seizures and reprisals in every case where property had once passed out of the possession of the rightful owner.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 53 N. W. Rep. 636.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.