533.010. Action to recover specific personal property, procedure. — If the plaintiff claim in his petition the possession of specific personal property, he may, at the time of filing his petition, or at any other time afterward, before the rendition of judgment in the cause, file his affidavit, or the affidavit of some other person in his behalf, showing:
(1) That the plaintiff is the owner of the property claimed, sufficiently describing it, or is lawfully entitled to the possession thereof;
(2) That it is wrongfully detained by the defendant;
(3) The actual value thereof;
(4) That the same has not been seized under any process, execution or attachment against the property of the plaintiff; and
(5) That plaintiff will be in danger of losing his said property, unless it be taken out of the possession of the defendant, or otherwise secured.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
18
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case:
MATTHEY v. St. Louis Cnty., 298 S.W.3d 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
MATTHEY v. St. Louis Cnty., 298 S.W.3d 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “010 requires a plaintiff to show the following: (1) that the plaintiff owns the property claimed or is lawfully entitled to the possession thereof; (2) that the defendant has wrongfully detained the plaintiffs property; (3) the actual value of the property; (4) that the property…”
Vahey v. Vahey, 120 S.W.3d 288 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 3× “Section 533.010 RSMo 2000. One who is not the sole owner of personal property cannot sue in replevin to recover possession.”
First Nat'l Bank of St. Louis v. Ricon, Inc., 311 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See Section 533.010. Although First National argues that its prayer for "such other and further relief” in its unjust enrichment claim would reasonably include an equitable lien on the residences, we disagree.”
Citizens State Bank of Nevada v. Wales, 469 S.W.2d 750 (Mo. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 3× “01; § 533.010] and a replevin bond (in a penal sum not shown in the transcript) approved by the sheriff [Rule 99.”
Morris Plan Co. v. Excelsior Estates, Inc., 540 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1976).
· cites it 4× “This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a replevin action instituted under *46 § 533.010. 1 That judgment granted possession of a mobile home to Morris Plan Company (plaintiff) and dismissed a counterclaim for damages filed by Excelsior Estates, Inc.”
Seymour Bank v. Kelley, 715 S.W.2d 586 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 4× “In Morris Plan, one of the adverse parties (“Excelsior”), in addition to complaining about the lack of a hearing, also contended that the pre-judgment seizure was invalid because the lienholder “failed to comply with the requirements of § 533.010 with respect to filing an…”
Saunders v. Flippo, 639 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).
“They released the truck to plaintiff only after he initiated this action and filed the affidavit and bond required under §§ 533.010 to 533.-250, RSMo. 1978 and Rules 99.”
Scher v. Gilpin, 738 S.W.2d 900 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987).
“See § 533.010, R.S.Mo., 1986. In the present case, however, plaintiff alleged that defendant “is now and has been legally responsible for the care and custody of property belonging to the Plaintiff through a bailment.”
John Deere Co. v. Sanders, 617 S.W.2d 606 (Mo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “” Section 533.010, reads basically the same as Rule 99.”
Kansas City Diesel Power Co. v. Kirloskar, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 2× “Diesel to ship the engines to Kirlos-kar’s Baltimore location “freight collect” as repeatedly requested by Kirloskar. There was evidence from which the jury could believe that it was K.”
Marco Fin. Co. v. Solbert Indus., Inc., 534 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).
· cites it 3× “2d 13, 19-20 [2]); and (4) that such property had not been seized under any lawful process, execution or attachment against the property of Marco at the time the replevin suit was instituted, as required by Section 533.010(4) RSMo 1969 ( 490 S.W.2d 13, 20 [2]).”
State Ex Rel. Janus v. Ferriss, 344 S.W.2d 656 (Mo. Ct. App. 1961).
“Winn, supra, if the personal property involved is in the possession of the defendants, an action in replevin, under the provisions of § 533.010 et seq. RSMo 1959, 36 V.A.M.S., 1 provides an adequate remedy at law.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 533.010(1): 1 case
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 533.010(2): 1 case
Kansas City Diesel Power Co. v. Kirloskar, Inc., 647 S.W.2d 841 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).
“Diesel to ship the engines to Kirlos-kar’s Baltimore location “freight collect” as repeatedly requested by Kirloskar. There was evidence from which the jury could believe that it was K.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 533.010(4): 1 case
Marco Fin. Co. v. Solbert Indus., Inc., 534 S.W.2d 469 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975).
“2d 13, 19-20 [2]); and (4) that such property had not been seized under any lawful process, execution or attachment against the property of Marco at the time the replevin suit was instituted, as required by Section 533.010(4) RSMo 1969 ( 490 S.W.2d 13, 20 [2]).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.