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 For In Middlesex
Category:
State:
Multi-State
County:
Middlesex
Control #:
US-000265
Format:
Word;
Rich Text
Instant download
Description
Free preview
Form popularity
FAQ
Replevin (/rɪˈplɛvɪn/) or claim and delivery (sometimes called revendication) is a legal remedy which enables a person to recover personal property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain compensation for resulting losses.
In The Law of Torts, John Fleming has written: From medieval times, there has also come down to us a summary process, known as replevin, by which a man out of whose possession goods have been taken may obtain their return until the right to the goods can be determined by a court of law.
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.
Replevin is an action seeking return of personal property wrongfully taken or held by the defendant. In exchange for the personal property, the plaintiff in the action pledges a security and is allowed to hold the property until the case is resolved by the court.
You will not go to jail. You have 21 days to respond to the complaint. However, the 21 days on the clock do not start to run until you are actually served with the summons by the process server.
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.
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.
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.
Unilateral mistake (where one party is mistaken and the other knows or ought to have known of the mistake). If the mistake relates to the fundamental nature of the offer the contract can be voided.
Slaughter steers, heifers, and cows 30 to 42 months of age possessing the minimum qualifications for Choice have a fat covering over the crops, back, loin, rump, and ribs that tends to be moderately thick. The brisket, flanks, and cod or udder show a marked fullness and the muscling is firm.