Burnap,  16  Barb.  309;  Hendricks  v,  Deckef,  35  Barb.  298;  Rucker  v,
Donovan,  13  Kan.  251.  One  who  has  a  general  or  special  property  in
the  goods,  accompanied  by  possession,  actaal  or  constructive,  can  main-
tain the  action.  Wilson  v,  Royston,  2  Ark.  315.  Party  without  title,
if  entitled  to  the  possession,  may  sustain  the  action  against  a  wrong-
doer.   Prater  v.  Frazier,  11  Ark.  249.
^Moorman  v.  Quick,  20  Ind.  68;  Miller  v.  Jones,  Admr.,  26  Ala.  260;
Shomo  V,  Caldwell,  21  Ala.  448;  Prater  v.  Frazier,  6  Eng.  (Ark.)  249.
Proof  of  title  recently  before  the  taking  would  raise  a  presumption
of  continued  ownership,  and  unless  contradicted,  would  be  sufficient
Smith  V.  Graves,  25  Ark.  441.  See,  also,  Tison's  Admr.  v.  Bowden,  8
Fla.  69.  A  mere  receiptor,  who  has  received  the  goods  from  an  officer
far  safekeeping,  cannot  sustain  replevin.  Warren  v.  Leland,  9  Mass.
265;  Ludden  v.  Leavitt,  9  Mass.  104;  Dillenback  i;.  Jerome,  7  Cow.  294;
Norton  v.  The  People,  8  Cow.  137.  But,  see.  Miller  v.  Adsit,  16  Wend.
335;  Thayer  v,  Hutchinson,  13  Vt  504;  Mitchell  v.  Hinman,  8  Wend.
668.  So  of  a  servant,  who  has  only  a  right  to  possession  by  virtue
of  a  delivery  from  his  master,  which  the  latter  may  put  an  end  to
at  any  time;  but  a  bailee  may  sustain  the  action.  Harris  v.  Smith,
8  S.  ft  R.  23;  Brownell  v,  Manchester,  1  Pick.  232;  Stanley  i;.  Oaylord,
1  Cush.  636;  Bond  v.  Paddelford,  13  Mass.  395;  Weld  v.  Hadley,  1  N.
H.  298.
"  Bayless  v.  Lefaivre,  37  Mo.  122.
658  THE  LAW  OP  REPLEVIN.
