AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We are of opinion that Article 49 applies. The original possession of the title-deeds by defendant was lawful and the time runs from the date of
the detainer''s possession becoming unlawful. The mere retention of the deeds in defendant''s possession after payment of the decree amount was
not unlawful, though plaintiffs had a legal right to demand delivery, but his retention of them after a lawful demand for delivery was made was an
illegal detention.
The time will therefore ran from the date of demand (July 1885) and the suit is not barred.
The judge does not state he entertains any doubt on the question of misjoinder and we see no reason to consider it under the provisions of
Section 617, Civil Procedure Code, In answer to the last question the point for decision is whether plaintiffs are entitled to the deeds. If they are
and if the defendant is not entitled to detain them there can be no question of security.