This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
In Northup v. Epps in Lousiana in 1853, the court issued a writ of replevin to the sheriff of Avoyelles Parish. The property that the sheriff was to take into custody was the plaintiff himself. He was held in slavery but claimed to be a free person abducted and sold as a slave. The papers were served on the defendant Epps and the sheriff took Northup into custody on a Sunday, and the hearing was held the following day, at which the plaintiff prevailed and then quickly left the state and went back to his native New York.
Should that example be mentioned here? Michael Hardy (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The official term in Rule 64 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is still Replevin. However, many states, when creating statutory remedies to codify and replace common law replevin (and detinue and trover) have used the term "claim and delivery," cf. "Action of Claim and Delivery"| in the South Carolina Bench Book for Summary Court Judges. Also see [here for a source dating to 1883 attesting to "claim and delivery" used when codifying the right in State statutes. John Thacker (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The traditional term is replevin, and has been for most of the history of the common law -- it also appears that the term "claim and delivery" is only used by some U.S. states, while other common law jurisdictions worldwide use "replevin" -- this should probably reflect the historic and more common name, replevin, than the newer statutory term "claim and delivery."126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:07, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved.Number57 17:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Claim and delivery → Replevin – This page was formerly labeled "Replevin," and the article still uses the term "replevin" instead of "claim and delivery" throughout. Replevin is the traditional name for this procedure in most English-speaking jurisdictions, as is described in the article itself, which refers to Canada and England, as well as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Rule 64) -- the name was apparently changed without any discussion in September 2014, due (per the talk page) to some some American states having apparently renamed the process "claim and delivery;" Given that the procedure has historically been called "Replevin," and the term "Replevin" is used throughout the article itself, and apparently all wikipedia links to this page still are to "Replevin" (see, for example, the "Common Law" series box on the right hand side, which features "Replevin," but links to a page called "claim and delivery"), I request that it be moved back to "Replevin," which is at least the original name of the article, since it has not been established that "Claim and Delivery" has supplanted the term "Replevin" simply by being renamed in the Rules of Procedure in use in certain U.S. States. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Strong support: Replevin is by far the more common term, and to my understanding, in those jurisdictions that have abandoned the old terms for causes/forms of action, there's no real standard. In fact, according to Black's Law Dictionarydetinue and trover are synonyms to replevin in the same sense that claim and delivery is. It would hardly seem appropriate to merge and redirect those here... so a split might even be appropriate for "claim and delivery", should enough content be found. My suspicion is that the two actions are "the same" in the sense that "claim and delivery" is probably the action that replaced "replevin" in commonwealth systems during some reform of the legal system... that does not mean that the two actions are the same or can be used synonymously. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.