Opinion ID: 1153101
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: procedure with reference to issue i

Text: In his ruling issued ore tenus from the bench, the circuit judge recognized that the prisoner was proceeding pro se and stated that Combs would not be held to the same standards as an attorney in drafting his complaint. The lower court opined: And, while [Combs] has entitled this a Petition for Writ of Replevin, the gist of the complaint is that he surrendered property to a correctional officer who failed to return it to him and he seeks to either recover the property or to recover damages for what he claims to be replacement value and he further seeks award of punitive damages for the wrongful conversion of his property. Combs instituted this action by filing a petition of complaint in replevin. As stated previously, it is apparent from the record that the trial judge granted the award on the basis of a suit in tort for damages as a result of West's conversion of the property. Combs did not allege in his petition that West had his property, only that West had confiscated it on June 29, 1988. Nor did Combs allege that West wrongfully took his property. This Court has held that a court looks to the content of pleading to determine the nature of the action. Pierce v. Chapman, 165 Miss. 749, 755, 143 So. 845, 847 (1932). Substance is considered over form. Lancaster v. Jordan Auto. Co., 185 Miss. 530, 545, 187 So. 535, 537 (1939); see also Higgins Lumber Co. v. Rosamond, 217 Miss. 1, 6, 63 So.2d 408, 409 (1953). The label is not controlling; therefore, this Court addresses the issues, as the trial court did, on the basis of conversion rather than replevin.