Brown v. Wood

• Citation: 121 Mass. 137
• Parties: Lydia A. Brown v. Eliphalet S. Wood
• Decision Date: 23 October 1876
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

121 Mass. 137

Lydia A. Brown v. Eliphalet S. Wood

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

October 23, 1876

Worcester. Replevin of a horse and other personal property, attached by the defendant, as a deputy of the sheriff of Worcester, on a writ against F. P. Brown, in favor of one Lincoln and others. Trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

The plaintiff, to prove her title to the property, put in a bill of sale from Jacob S. Miller to her, dated May 7, 1875, and it appeared that F. P. Brown was her husband, and, on May 7 1875, owned the property and made a bill of sale thereof to Miller, who then made the bill of sale to the plaintiff, it being one transaction, and made for the purpose of conveying the property to the wife. There was no delivery of the property by F. P. Brown to Miller, excepting the delivery of the bill of sale, and the fact that Miller went upon the premises where the plaintiff and her husband lived and where the property was kept, and placed his hands upon each article of the property and made a formal delivery thereof to the plaintiff. There was no change in the actual situation and use of the property at the time of said delivery; but it was situated at the time in buildings, of which the plaintiff was lessee, and remained there and was used by F. P. Brown, the same after as before. No consideration was paid for the transfer of said property, except as hereinafter appears. At the time these bills of sale were given, F. P. Brown was insolvent, and the plaintiff knew it.

The plaintiff testified that she was married to F. P. Brown in 1871; and that when she was married she had about $ 500 of her own money that she had earned; that at several times she lent her husband three or four hundred dollars, and he repaid her; that about September 1, 1872, she let her husband have three hundred dollars, to put into his business, which he did, and never restored it to her, and that she took this property as repayment of the money that she had lent to him. The fact of the loan was testified to by other witnesses, to whom both the husband and wife had stated that this loan had been made by her to him, but their testimony was only as to the statements of the husband and wife. This evidence was admitted subject to the defendant's objection. At the close of the plaintiff's case, she was recalled, and testified, in answer to a question of the defendant's counsel, that they were alone at their house when she made this last loan to her husband.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

Exceptions sustained.

F. P Goulding, for the defendant, was stopped by the court.

H. C Hartwell,...