Properties

Brief

Anderson v. Gouldberg

Procedural History:

• Jury finds for Plaintiff.
• Defendant request new trial. Denied. (Gouldberg)
• Defendants Appeal.

Facts:

• P claims to have cut 93 pine logs in section 22 in the winter of 1889-1890.
• P claims to have hauled them to a mill on section 6.
• This is the spot where the D took them.
• P shows no authority to cut the logs from the area in which he did cut them.
• D claim that the logs were actually cut on section 26 which belongs to Ann River Logging Company.
• D claims they took the logs as direction from Ann River Logging Company.
• Court charges that even if P got possession of logs as a trespasser, he is entitled to that possession against anyone but the true owner.
• Jury finds verdict for the P.
  • Claims the logs were not cut on the property of the D.

Issue:

• Does bare possession of property, though wrongfully obtained, sufficient title to enable the party enjoying it to maintain replevin against a mere stranger who takes it from him?

Holding:

• Affirmed. One who takes property from the possession of another can only rebut this presumption by showing a superior title in himself, or in some way connection himself with one who has. One who has acquired the possession of property, whether by finding, bailment, or by mere tort, has a right to retain that possession as against a mere wrongdoer who is a stranger to the property.