This form is a Verfied Complaint for Replevin. The plaintiff has filed this action against defendant in order to replevy certain property in the defendant's possession.
Replevin For A Cow In Kings
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Kings
Control #:
US-000265
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
Creditors use replevin actions to recover collateral when debtors default on secured loans. For example, a bank might file a replevin action against a borrower to repossess the borrower's car after he missed too many payments.
For example, a bank might file a replevin action against a borrower to repossess the borrower's car after he missed too many payments. Replevin can also refer to a writ authorizing the retaking of property by its rightful owner (i.e., the remedy sought by replevin actions).
Re·​plev·​in ri-ˈple-vən. : an action originating in common law and now largely codified by which a plaintiff having a right in personal property claimed to be wrongfully taken or detained by the defendant seeks to recover possession of the property and sometimes to obtain damages for the wrongful detention.
Replevin actions are common and fall into two types of action: if immediate possession of the property is sought and if the party filing the action is content to wait for an adjudication of final rights.
The process of starting a replevin action usually begins with filing a complaint. It also requires filing an affidavit in the county or district court where the property is. The affidavit: States that the plaintiff claims rightful ownership or entitlement to possession of the property.
The Complaint: The complaint in replevin typically must include: (i) a description of the property to be replevied; (ii) its value; (iii) its location if known; and (iv) the material facts upon which the claim is based – in other words, why the filing party is entitled to seize the property that has been taken.
Dissent (Sherwood, J.) That Sherwood correctly speculated that Rose could be used to breed should not operate to allow Walker to rescind the contract at his leisure. The cow contracted for by the parties was ultimately the cow sold.
The Michigan Supreme Court in 1887 declared in Sherwood v. Walker that, because a mutual mistake affecting the substance of the transaction had been made, Hiram Walker had a right to rescind the contract and keep the cow.
The court reversed the lower court's judgment in favor of Sherwood and granted a new trial, ruling that if both parties operated under a mutual mistake of a material fact regarding the cow's condition, the contract was voidable.
Walker that, because a mutual mistake affecting the substance of the transaction had been made, Hiram Walker had a right to rescind the contract and keep the cow. Law students ever since have studied the case as a classic example of the contracts law doctrine of rescission based on mutual mistake.