Case Name: A. A. COOPER WAGON AND BUGGY COMPANY, Appellant, v. FRED WOOLDRIDGE, Respondent
Court: Kansas City Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1903-04-06
Citations: 98 Mo. App. 653
Docket Number: 
Parties: A. A. COOPER WAGON AND BUGGY COMPANY, Appellant, v. FRED WOOLDRIDGE, Respondent.
Judges: All concur.
Reporter: Missouri Appeal Reports
Volume: 98
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
A. A. COOPER WAGON AND BUGGY COMPANY, Appellant, v. FRED WOOLDRIDGE, Respondent.
Kansas City Court of Appeals,
April 6, 1903.
Replevin: TITLE: POSSESSION. Where a plaintiff has parted with both title and possession of personal property, he can not maintain replevin therefor.
Appeal from Nodaway Circuit Court. — Ho». Gallatin Craig, Judge.
Affirmed.
E. A. Vinsonhaler and 8. E. Browne for appellant.
Under the original order the title was to remain in appellant until paid for. If the court holds that there was not an acceptance of the new terms imposed by appellant, then, as the order was in duplicate, the change would not invalidate the contract for it may be proven by the copy in hands of Bailey & George. Jones v. Hurd, 26 S. W. (Ark.) 193. In such cáse the vendor may'recover from the assignee of the vendee. Tufts v. Thompson, 22 Mo. App. 564; Mfg. Co. v. Huff, 62 Mo. App. 124. The only issue presented by an'swer is a general denial.
James B. Newman for respondent.
It devolved on appellant to show its right, if it had any, to the possession of the property in controversy. It destroyed all right, if it ever had any, under the order sent it by Bailey & George when it made the alterations therein, and if there had been a commission' contract of any kind it devolved on appellant to show what it was; for appellant could recover only on the strength of its own title. Kennedy v. Dodson, 44 Mo. App. 550; Moore v. Carr, 65 Mo. App. 64; Springfield v. Shackelford, 65 Mo. App. 364; Fleming v. Clark, 22 Mo. App. loe. cit. 222; Stave Co. v. Whetson, 34 Mo. 624.

Opinion:
BROADDUS, J.
This is.an action of replevin for certain articles included in the order of Bailey & George made on the plaintiff on July 15, 1901, referred to in a case decided at this term of court between the same parties as here. The articles in question remained unsold and- passed into the hands of the respondent as assignee. The evidence in this case proves that the said articles were sold outright, as shown by the statements and hills that were furnished by plaintiff to said firm from time to time. The plaintiff seeks to- recover under said original order, which we have decided it can not do. The plaintiff having parted with both the title and possession of the property in controversy, it can not maintain replevin.
Cause affirmed.
All concur.