REPLEVIN. A form of action which lies to regain the possession of personal chattels which have been taken from the plaintiff un lawfully.
The action originally lay for the of recovering chattels taken as a distrAs, but has acquired a much more extended use. In England and most of the it extends to all cases of illegal, taking, d in some of the states it may be brought/wher ever a person wishes to recover goods to which he alleges title. See infra.
A general use of this remedy seems to date from the latter part of the 13th cen tury, referring to the fact that at that period the remedy knoWn as vetitum na nvtum (q. v.) was falling into desuetude. It is said that at that time, "under the name of Replegiare, or Replevin, an action was being developed which was proving itself to be convenient action for the settlement of disputes between landlord and tenant ; but it seems to have 'owed its vigor, its rapidity, and therefore its convenience, to the supposition that a serious offence had been committed against the king." 2 Poll. & Maitl. 576 ; see 3 Holdsw. Hist. E. L. 248.
By virtue of the writ, the sheriff proceeds at once to take possession of the property therein described and transfer it to the plaintiff, upon his giving pledges which are satisfactory to the sheriff to prove his title, or return they chattels taken if he fail so to do. It is said to have laid formerly in the detinuit, which is the only form now found at common law, and also in the dettinet, where the defendant retained possession, and the sheriff proceeded to take possession and de liver the property to the plaintiff the trial and proof of title ; Chitty, Pl. 145 ; 3 Bla. Com. 146; DETINET ; DETINUIT.
It differs from detinue in this : that it requires an unlawful taking as the founda tion of the action ; and from all other per sonal actions in that it is brought to recover the possession of the specific property claim ed to have been unlawfully taken.
The action lies to recover possession of personal property ; Roberts v. Bank, 19 Pa.
71; including parish records ; v. Baldwin, 11 Pick. (Mass.) 492 ; trees after they had been cut down ; Warren v. Leland, 2 Barb. (N. Y.) 613; Davis v. Easley, 13 Ill. 192; records of a corporatioU ; Southern Plank-Road Co. v. Hixon, 5 Ind. 165 ; arti cles which can be speeifteally distinguished from all other chattels of the same kind by indicia. or ear-marks ; Low v. Martin, 18 Ill. 286 ; including money tied up in a bag and taken in that condition ; 2 Mod. 61; a prom issory note ; Pritchard v. Norwood, 155 Mass. 539, 30 N. E. 80 ; trees cut into boards ; Dill ingham v. Smith, 30 Me. 370; Davis v. Bas-, ley, 13 111. 192: a house which is being moved from the land on which it was built; Luce v. Ames, 84 Me. 133, 24 Atl. 720 ; but does not lie for injuries to things annexed to the realty ; 4 Term 504 ; Cresson v. Stout, 17 Johns. (1N. Y.) 116, 8 Am. Dec. 373 ; Hooser v. Hays, 10 B. Monr. (Ky.) 72, 50 Am. Dec. 540; nor to recover such things, if dissevered and removed as part of the same act ; De Mott v. Hagerman, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 220, 18 Am. Dec. 443; nor for writings concerning the realty ; 1 Brownl. 168.
Replevin lies in Massachusetts wherever detinue does, e. g. for deeds which attend the inheritance ; Holmes, Corn. L. 352.
A general property with the right to im mediate possession gives the plaintiff suffi cient title to maintain it ; Dunham v. Wyck off, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 280, 20 Am. Dec. 695; Collins v. Evans, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 63 ; Frizell v. White, 27 Miss. 198; Tittemore v. Laboun ty, 60 Vt. 624, 15 Atl. 196; as do a special property and actual possession ; Mead v. Kilday, 2 Watts (Pa.) 110 ; Wilson v. Roy ston, 2 Ark. 315 ; Broadwater v. 10 Mo. 277; Williams v. West, 2 Ohio St. 82; and the hare possession of property, though! wrongfully obtained, is sufficient title to maintain it against a mere stranger ; Ander son v. Gouldt erg, 51 Minn. 294, 53 N. W.,636. If the plaintiff has a right of possession, it is I immaterial what, his title is; Ferguson v. Lauterstein, 160 Pa. 427, 28 Atl. 852.