Talk:Detinue

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think detinue is a "remedy" as described in the current article. My understanding is that it is an older tort not too different from conversion. I'l take some time to look it up later but if anyone knows off hand, let me know. Thanks. --PullUpYourSocks 23:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm highly puzzled by the article, since "detinue" was one of the forms of action at common law and therefore not a remedy but more like a tort (though that classification is a newer one). Specific recovery was one of the possible remedies for detinue at common law, which involved the court ordering the detainor to return the detained property to its owner (or person able to assert a better right to it).

I'm fairly sure that there is no notion of intention. I am not sure how a bona fide purchase can have anything to do with it either since nemo dat quod non habet. This article looks very confused. Question: has "detinue" been adopted in the US to mean what this article says it means, or is this just an article written in error. Its hard to tell (my major complaint about law articles -- how can I tell?). Francis Davey 20:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Changes seem to have been made by someone called Steve H. Fish, who does not appear to claim any knowledge of law, so I suspect the just plain wrong. Care to rewrite it? Francis Davey 20:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I spent some time checking a few tort texts and honestly I have no idea where the current definition of detinue came from. Before I was willing to give some benefit of the doubt but I can't see any reason to now. Simply put, Detinue is the wrongful detention of goods. The rest of the stuff just doesn't make any sense. It needs a complete re-write. --PullUpYourSocks 20:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Elk image
What's the relevance of the picture of the Elk? There's just the picture of the animal with the caption 'Modern Canadian law still recognizes detinue' under it. -Depor23 (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the picture should be removed, the other images are also largely irrelevant. Eiad77 (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)