53 N.W. 636 (Minn. 1892)
The logs in controversy were not cut upon the land of the defendants and consequently that they were entire strangers to the property.1 The plaintiffs obtained possession of the logs in the first instance by trespassing upon the land of some third party.2 There was evidence from which the jury might have so found.3
The plaintiffs then brought suit in replevin in the appropriate Minnesota trial court.4 The case was tried before a jury that heard testimony about the origins of the logs.5
The jury specifically found that the logs had not come from any land owned by the defendants.6 This finding confirmed the defendants' status as outsiders to the property.7 After the trial court entered judgment, the defendants pursued an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which reviewed the matter in 1892.8
Whether bare possession of property, though wrongfully obtained, is sufficient title to enable the party enjoying it to maintain replevin against a mere stranger, who takes it from him?9
Bare possession of property, though wrongfully obtained, is sufficient title to enable the party enjoying it to maintain replevin against a mere stranger who takes it from him.10 When it is said that to maintain replevin the plaintiff’s possession must have been lawful, it means merely that it must have been lawful as against the person who deprived him of it.11 Possession is good title against all the world except those having a better title.12 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.13
Yes. The established facts demonstrate that the plaintiffs obtained possession of the logs in the first instance by trespassing upon the land of some third party.14 The defendants were complete strangers to the property.15 Because the rule provides that possession constitutes title against all except those with better rights, the plaintiffs' bare possession suffices to support their replevin action against these strangers.16
Bare possession of property, though wrongfully obtained, is sufficient title to enable the party enjoying it to maintain replevin against a mere stranger who takes it from him.