Opinion ID: 2450831
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part

Text: DONNELLY, Judge. I concur in all of the principal opinion except the portion which pertains to replevin of the $5000 savings certificate. In concluding there was no delivery to defendant of a present interest in the certificate and that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to possession thereof, the trial court erroneously declared and applied the law. In re Estate of LaGarce, 487 S.W.2d 493 (Mo. banc 1972). The principal opinion concedes there was delivery of a present interest in the certificate but then dilutes LaGarce by holding that a bailment was created. It then cites Pulliam v. Burlingame, 81 Mo. 111 (1883) for the proposition that, in a bailment situation, the accepted rule that one joint owner of personal property cannot maintain an action of replevin against his joint tenant does not apply. I understand Pulliam to hold that where defendant borrowed two mules from plaintiff, and at the time made no mention of any claim to them, he was estopped to claim them against plaintiff. Here, the parties were joint tenants and they both knew they were joint tenants. There is no estoppel here. Plaintiff may not maintain the replevin action asserted in Count II or the action asserted in Count IV for punitive damages in connection with defendant's retention of possession of the $5000 savings certificate. To the extent indicated, I respectfully dissent.