 | Nathan Howard (Jr.) - Civil procedure - 1845 - 568 pages
...1846, which was accompanied by an affidavit made by James Hill in behalf of the plaintiff; that said plaintiff was the owner of, and entitled to the possession of the property described, &c. The writ was returned on or about the 16th of July last. The defendant was not arrested,... | |
 | Nevada. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1870 - 514 pages
...this action, which was replevin against the Sheriff, and obtained a judgment to the effect that he was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property, and that Sorrensen had no right to it. From this judgment, and an order overruling his motion for a... | |
 | Indiana. Supreme Court, Horace E. Carter, Albert Gallatin Porter, Gordon Tanner, Benjamin Harrison, Michael Crawford Kerr, James Buckley Black, Augustus Newton Martin, Francis Marion Dice, John Worth Kern, John Lewis Griffiths, Sidney Romelee Moon, Charles Frederick Remy - Law reports, digests, etc - 1873 - 616 pages
...and the appellant excepted. The court rendered a judgment on the verdict. The judgment was that the plaintiff was the owner of, and entitled to the possession of- the hogs described in the complaint, and that the plaintiff recover of and from the defendant, the sum... | |
 | Iowa. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1874 - 776 pages
...issues joined a jury trial was had and the following verdict returned, to-wit : " First. — That the plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property. Second. — That he had sustained damages in the sum of five dollars." The defendant filed a motion... | |
 | Indiana. Supreme Court, Horace E. Carter, Albert Gallatin Porter, Gordon Tanner, Benjamin Harrison, Michael Crawford Kerr, James Buckley Black, Augustus Newton Martin, Francis Marion Dice, John Worth Kern, John Lewis Griffiths, Sidney Romelee Moon, Charles Frederick Remy - Law reports, digests, etc - 1875 - 674 pages
...Deckard and East, as referred to in the evidence? "Ans. Deckard principal and East surety. " 10. Who was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property in controversy at the time of the commencement of this suit ? "Ans. Hughes East. "11. Did the plaintiff,... | |
 | Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich - Law reports, digests, etc - 1911 - 694 pages
...was filed December 7, 1907. The complaint i Savings Bank v. Peterson, 30 Utah 475. does not allege that plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property therein described at the time the action was commenced. Defendant answered, and a trial was had to... | |
 | Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich - Law reports, digests, etc - 1912 - 686 pages
...the same. As conclusions of law the court held that the defendant, prior to the making of the order, "was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property," and "was entitled to a decree against the plaintiff quieting the title in the defendant" subject to... | |
 | Law reports, digests, etc - 1890 - 1148 pages
...horses, or the value tliereof, and also damages lor their wrongful use. The complaint alleged that "the plaintiff was the owner of, and entitled to the possession of," the property. The answer denied this, and the other allegations of the plaintiff, and, as new matter, pleads a justification... | |
 | United States. Supreme Court - Law reports, digests, etc - 1886 - 782 pages
...use and enjoyment of them by the defendant ; and that, in the event it should be determined that the plaintiff was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the premises, then the value of the improvements thereon be specifically found, and the defendant have... | |
| |
At this trial the court entered judgment, holding that appellee was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the property in question. 
