Case ID: dc_5/html/0611-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "(Thruston, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William Emack v. Horatio N. Crabb.
    If the plaintiff in replevin never had previous possession of the goods replevied, the Court will, of course, order them to be returned to the defendant, on motion, upon the usual security.
    Replevin to get possession of goods conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff by a deed of trust to sell them, in case a certain note should not be paid at maturity. The defendant now moved for a return of the goods.,
    
      Mr. May, for the defendant.
    The plaintiff never had possession, and therefore the Court will, of course, order the return; for it is only where the possession having been originally in the plaintiff, has been forcibly or fraudulently obtained by the defendant, that the Court is authorized, by the Maryland Act of 1785, c. 80, to refuse to order the return.
    
      Mr. Mellen, contra.
    
    When the note was due and unpaid the plaintiff had a right to the possession; and the possession of the defendant then became fraudulent.
   The Court,

(Thruston, J.

absent,) ordered the property to be returned, upon the usual security.