REPLEVIN, a term in English law signifying the recovery by a person of goods unlawfully taken out of his possession by means of a special form of legal process ; this falls into two divisions—(1) the "replevy," the steps which the owner takes to secure the physical possession of the goods, by giving security for prosecut ing the action and for the return of the goods if the case goes against him, and (2) the "action of replevin" itself. The jurisdic tion in the first case is in the county court (q.v.) ; in the second case the supreme court has also jurisdiction in certain circum stances. At common law, the ordinary action for the recovery of goods wrongfully taken would he one of detinue (q.v.) ; but no means of immediate recovery was possible till the action was tried, and until the Common Law Procedure Act 1854 the defendant might exercise an option of paying damages instead of restoring the actual goods.
United States.—In the United States the action of replevin is almost entirely regulated by statute in each jurisdiction, and is materially different from the use and construction of the common law action of replevin in England. The action is laid upon a wrongful taking and a wrongful detaining or a wrongful detaining alone. It is a proceeding in rem to recover goods and chattels, i.e., every kind of personal property to which the plaintiff has the right to present possession, and also, by statute, a proceeding in personam, to recover damages for either the detention or both the caption and detention, according to the wording of the statute.
It is a possessory action, the gist of which is the right of posses sion in the plaintiff, but in nearly all cases the title is determined since the owner is entitled to possession, and possession by ver dict where the title is in question awards title. It will not lie to recover real property or fixtures attached to the freehold, nor can it be maintained in any case in which the object sought is the determination of title to land. In some jurisdictions all damages growing out of the wrongful taking and detention may be assessed in the replevin action ; in others, where the statute limits the recovery of damages to detention only, a separate subsequent ac tion may be brought to recover compensatory and punitive dam ages sustained by a malicious wrongful taking (Crockett v. Miller, I 12 Federal 729; Petrie v. Wardman-Justice Motors, Sup. Ct. D. C. No. 71,338). This is a rule peculiar to replevin, where so regulated by statute, and is at variance with the general rule of law requiring the adjudication in one cause of action of all claims and demands growing out of a single tort.