## Facts

- Herbert W. Bagwell owned a violin, bow, and case that were stolen from him in January 1933.
- Coy Reynolds later purchased the same items in good faith and for value from a reputable dealer for his daughter’s use.
- Reynolds kept the violin in his sitting room, and his daughter used it openly in music lessons with various teachers.
- Bagwell discovered the violin in Reynolds’s possession in March 1938, demanded its return, and Reynolds refused.
- Bagwell filed a replevin action on March 10, 1938, seeking return of the specific personal property.
- Reynolds pleaded Oklahoma’s two-year statute of limitations for recovery of personal property (12 O.S. 1941 § 95).
- Bagwell alleged concealment, relying primarily on evidence that the violin had been refinished (original varnish removed and replaced), with the alteration occurring years after Reynolds acquired it.

## Issues

1. Whether a replevin claim to recover stolen personal property is barred when a good-faith purchaser has held it openly for more than two years before suit under 12 O.S. 1941 § 95.
2. Whether refinishing or similar alteration constitutes wrongful concealment sufficient to toll the two-year limitations period.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the judgment entered on a jury verdict for Bagwell.
- The court held the two-year limitations period ran from Reynolds’s acquisition and open, adverse possession, not from Bagwell’s discovery of the property.
- The court held there was no fraud or wrongful concealment attributable to Reynolds that would toll the statute.
- The replevin action was time-barred, and Bagwell could not recover the property.

## Legal Principles

- For stolen personal property held by a good-faith purchaser for value, open and notorious adverse possession for the statutory period bars the true owner’s recovery.
- The limitations period for recovery of personal property generally runs from the time of wrongful taking or possession, not from the owner’s later discovery, absent fraud or concealment.
- Tolling based on concealment requires wrongful concealment under the circumstances; the possessor cannot be deprived of the limitations defense without proof of conduct aimed at hiding the property or its identity.
- An alteration occurring years after acquisition, without proof it was done to conceal identity or prevent discovery during the limitations period, does not suspend the running of limitations.

## Conclusion

Because Reynolds purchased the violin in good faith and possessed it openly for more than two years before Bagwell sued, and because the later refinishing did not constitute wrongful concealment that tolled limitations, Oklahoma’s two-year statute barred Bagwell’s replevin action.


Reynolds v. Bagwell, 200 Okla. 550, 198 P.2d 215 (Okla. 1948)