Case ID: del_30/html/0287-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Boyce, J:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John H. Clark vs. Wilmington Trust Company, Lucius C. Jones, County Constable, and The Diamond State Warehouse Company.
    Replevin—Action on Bond—Scope of Inquiry.
    Ordinarily in an action upon a replevin bond no question can be tried which could and ought to have been tried and determined in the replevin suit, and therefore, where plaintiff did not appear when case was called for trial, defendant was entitled to a jury and trial to prove ownership and damages.
    
      (March 25, 1919.)
    Boyce and Conrad, J. J., sitting.
    
      Robert Adair for plaintiff, who was granted leave to withdraw from the case.
    
      David J. Reinhardt for defendants.
    Superior Court for New Castle County,
    March Term, 1919.
    Replevin No. 55,
    September Term, 1918.
    Action by John H. Clark against Wilmington Trust Company, Lucius C. Jones, county constable, and the Diamond State Warehouse Company. Verdict for defendants.
    This was an action of replevin brought by the plaintiff against the defendants for the recovery of the possession of certain household goods and chattels seized and taken under execution by Lucius C. Jones, constable issued on a judgment obtained by the Wilmington Trust Company against the plaintiff, for the sum of one hundred dollars besides cost of suit. After the seizure of the goods, the constable stored them with the Diamond State Warehouse Company, and incurred expenses for storage in the sum of twenty-eight dollars. The goods were thereafter delivered to the plaintiff by the sheriff under the writ of replevin, the defendants' not giving property bond.
    The case coming on for trial, the plaintiff was called, and not answering, counsel for the defendants stated to the court that he would not ask for a nonsuit, as the defendants’ remedy would now probably be on the replevin bond for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute his suit, and requested that he might have a jury and proceed with the trial for the purpose of proving the ownership and value of the property replevied and defendants’ damages which he claimed amounted to one hundred and thirty-eight dollars and two cents.
   Boyce, J:

Your suggestion is a very proper one. Ordinarily in an action upon a replevin bond no question can be tried which could and ought to have been tried and determined in the replevin suit. Harmon v. Collins, 2 Pennewill 36, 45 Atl. 541. Let a jury be drawn.

Testimony for the defendants was submitted to the jury and they fomid for the defendants for one hundred and thirty-eight dollars and two cents.