Samuel Blatchford, Bohlen v. Arthurs — Opinion of the Court
“ The most that was shown by the evidence was that the plaintiff claimed title to the timber as being a tenant in common with the defendants of the lands from which it was cut, (it being stated in the bill of exceptions that both plaintiff and defendants claimed under Baum, Carrier, and Osborne;) and that the suit was against the defendants, being such tenants in common with the plaintiff, and in possession of the timber.It is a well-settled principle that, to maintain an action of replevin, a person must have, not only some right of property, but the right of possession. ”
