Cal. Civ. Code § 89-7-99
Pleas to the declaration.
Operative Text
The only pleas to a declaration in replevin shall be either, first, a denial that the goods were seized on demand or at the plaint of the defendant; or, second, an avowry that they were rightfully seized for rent or supplies, or both, due and in arrear, or to become due. The two pleas can only be pleaded together when each is to only a part of the declaration and relates to separate portions of the property. The first of said pleas shall be substantially to the following effect, to wit: “Thomas East v. Circuit court, County. William West. “Now comes the defendant, William West, and for plea to plaintiff’s declaration, says: It is not true that he caused an officer of County to seize and take from plaintiff, Thomas East, under an attachment for rent, the possession of the property, or any part of it, described in the said declaration; and of this the defendant puts himself upon the country.” On the trial of this plea the burden of proof shall be on the plaintiff. History Codes, 1892, § 2523; 1906, § 2861; Hemingway’s 1917, § 2359; 1930, § 2210; 1942, § 932.
Mississippi Code § 89-7-99 governs the permissible defenses a defendant may raise in a replevin action — a lawsuit over the seizure of personal property, typically for unpaid rent or supplies. Under this provision, a defendant may either deny that the goods were seized at their direction, or affirmatively justify the seizure by claiming the goods were lawfully taken for rent or supplies that were due, in arrear, or about to become due. When both defenses are raised together, each must apply to a distinct portion of the seized property. In the denial plea, the burden of proving the seizure occurred falls on the plaintiff, not the defendant.
Plain English — not legal advice.
Under Miss. Code Ann. § 89-7-99, a landlord who has seized a tenant's goods for unpaid rent or supplies through an attachment process may defend that action in court by filing an avowry — a formal acknowledgment that the seizure occurred, paired with a justification that the rent or supplies were lawfully owed. Compliant operators in this context ensure that any such seizure is tied to a specific, documented debt for rent or supplies that was due, in arrear, or contractually about to become due. When a landlord's seizure covers multiple items, careful record-keeping that links each item to the specific legal basis for its seizure is consistent with the pleading requirements this section establishes.
General guidance for property managers — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult an attorney for advice on your case.
Miss. Code Ann. § 89-7-99 provides tenants whose personal property has been seized under a rent attachment with defined procedural rights in a replevin action. A tenant acting as plaintiff may challenge whether the seizure was actually carried out at the landlord's direction, and under this provision the burden of proving that the seizure occurred rests on the plaintiff-tenant — a procedural posture worth understanding before pursuing this type of claim. Tenants facing property seizures related to rent disputes may benefit from consulting a tenant-rights organization or legal aid provider familiar with Mississippi landlord-tenant law to understand how these pleading rules interact with their broader rights.
General guidance for tenants — not legal advice for your specific situation. Consult a tenant-rights organization or attorney for advice on your case.
Generated October 30, 2026 — auto-generated, not yet human-reviewed. See /transparency for methodology.
Effective Timeline
References Out
No outbound references recorded yet for this provision.
References In
No inbound references recorded yet for this provision.