CALVERT v. STEWART, 4 F. Cas. 1084

CRANCH, Chief Judge, thought, that by hiring out the property, and suffering it to be taken out of the state of Maryland, the plaintiff lost his lien; that his action of re-plevin admits that he lost the possession, and that with the possession his lien ceased. That the distress was, in its nature, a local remedy, confined to the territory and jurisdiction of Maryland, and which could not be enforced here. At first, without recollecting the statute (11 Geo.

II. c. 19, § 19), he thought that the plaintiff, by hiring out the distress, and sending it out of the county and state, was a trespasser ab initio, and could not justify under the distress; but upon recollecting that statute, he retracted that part of his opinion; but still held, that although trespass may be maintained upon possession alone, yet replevin cannot without a title either general or special. See Williamson v. Ringgold (in this court, at May Term, 1830) [Case No. 17,755]; Meany v. Head [Case No. 9,379], Mr. Justice Story’s opinion; Stat. 52 Hen. III. c. 4; 2 Bac. Abr. tit. “Distress,” D.; Gilb.

Repl. 157, 164; Gardner v. Campbell, 15 Johns. 401; 2 Wheat Selwyn, N. P. 896. Mr. Taylor, for plaintiff, cited Com. Landl. & Ten. 410. Mr. Neale, for defendant, cited 3 Bl. Comm. 12; Bradb. Dis. 240; Whitaker, Lien, 68, 69; Paley, Ag. 224-230, 234-237; Shannon v. Shannon, 1 Schouler & L. 324; Dod v. Monger, 6 Mod. 215; Sweet v. Pym, 1 East, 4. Verdict for plaintiff.