Case Name: L. Stoker, Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. James H. Crane, Appellant
Court: Supreme Court of Missouri
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1870-07
Citations: 46 Mo. 264
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. Stoker, Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. James H. Crane, Appellant.
Judges: The other judges concur.
Reporter: Missouri Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 264–264

Head Matter:
L. Stoker, Administrator, etc., Respondent, v. James H. Crane, Appellant.
■1." Justice’s court — Replevin — Statement—Venue.—1In suit for replevin before ■ ' a'justice, the statement that plaintiff was the'owner and entitled'to the possession of the property is- sufficient; without an averment th'at plaintiff was ■ lawfully entitled to it, and the venue is sufficiently laid if it appear in the margin. ;
.dppeal from Fourth District Court.
Matlock and Meryheio, for respondent.
J. G. Blair, for appellant.

Opinion:
Currier, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court.
" This is a replevin -suit which was Commenced before'a justice of the peace, under the statute (Gen. Stat.' 1865, p. T08, '§ 1). On appeal to'the Circuit Court the plaintiff recovered judgment. The defendant- moves in arrest on the ground of supposed radical deficiencies in the Original statement filed with the justice. The statement shows that the plaintiff was the " owner and entitled to the possession " of the claimed property, and that the defendant wrongfully detained it, without stating any venue in the body of the complaint. 'The venue, however, appears in the margin. Following- the prayer for' judgment is this: " Washington Stoker, plaintiff, makes oath and says that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the facts and allegations contained in the above statement are jilst and true." The paper was then' signed by Stoker, and sworn to, the jiirat being in the usual form.
- The objections to the statement are that it fails to aver that the plaintiff was "lawfully" entitled to the-possession of the property sued for; that no venue is laid- in the body of it; and that it is not, as the defendant assumes, verified by affidavit.
As' grounds' for arresting the judgment, there is nothing in either of these objections, and the judgment will consequently be affirmed.
The other judges concur.