Ahlswede v. Schoneveld (1971)
No.6385, September17,1971. The full court opinion was read through the public reader, an unofficial reproduction. Direct HTTP403 and unsuccessful alternative-host502 are separately preserved; the reader result is not mislabeled raw HTML. Full reader text is in Nevada evidence.
Facts and complete holding
A ranch manager had previously fed/pastured the owner’s cattle on his own premises. The cattle returned to the owner’s ranch, were sold to respondents, and remained there. After his employment ended, the manager reentered and took 62cattle, claiming an agister’s lien. The purchasers recovered the cattle and $3,812.56 damages; the Supreme Court affirmed. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
Agisters had no common-law care/feed lien; NRS108.540 creates it. The claimant had acquired a lien while actually boarding on his premises, but lost it when he returned or acquiesced in returning the cattle. Subsequent control as the owner’s employee was not possession as an independent bailee. The parties’ contrary legal stipulation could not alter that rule. Feed furnished for animals elsewhere ordinarily does not create the requisite possession. Full primary opinion, unofficial reproduction.
The court reaffirmed Cardinal and Estey on voluntary surrender and distinguished pledge ownership from a lien’s right of retention. Continued actual/constructive agister possession would have preserved the lien despite the owner’s sale; wrongful recapture did not revive it. Sections108.540–.570 contain no retaking power analogous to garageman108.280, and the Oklahoma statute cited by claimant did not require possession. Additional ownership, offer-of-proof and restricted cross-examination assignments lacked supporting authority and were reviewed and rejected. The judgment and exoneration of the claim-and-delivery undertaking stood. Complete opinion and notes.
Present statutory comparison and treatment boundary
Current NRS108.540–.570 and108.280 retain this possession/retaking distinction. Do not turn an asserted boarding bill into authority to seize an animal from its purchaser. The full holding, including adverse evidentiary dispositions and historical-case treatment within the opinion, was verified. Current statutory comparison supports this limited possession/retaking distinction; no identified later opinion is offered as a comprehensive endorsement and no exhaustive citator certification is asserted.
Applies in →
nevada · equipment-and-machinery
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify possession, current statutes and the actual proposed sale with a licensed attorney before acting.