Davis v. Stone

• Decision Date: 07 May 1875
• Parties: Ruth A. Davis v. James R. Stone
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

117 Mass. 486

Ruth A. Davis v. James R. Stone

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 7, 1875

Suffolk. Tort for conversion of the plaintiff's goods.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the defendant admitted that the articles named in the plaintiff's writ were the property of the plaintiff, and that he took them from her house; but alleged in defence that he took them with other furniture, as the property of one Jenkins, by virtue of a writ in favor of Teller against the said Jenkins. He testified that he went to the house, with a keeper, for the purpose of making the attachment; that the plaintiff at first refused him admittance but that he finally gained it as he alleged, in a peaceable manner. After entering he told her that he was an officer, showed her the writ, and said he had come to attach the furniture of Jenkins, which was there. The plaintiff replied that she owned all the goods there, and told him not to take them; if he did, he would suffer for it to which the defendant replied that he had no desire to take her goods, that he did not come there for that purpose, and if she would be kind enough to tell him which were her goods he would not take them. She replied that she should not give him any information as to what were her goods and what were not. The defendant then said that he should use his own judgment, as he was satisfied that there were goods there belonging to Jenkins. He thereupon attached them, and put his keeper in possession. The plaintiff, immediately after his first entry, had locked the door through which he entered, and taken the key, and refused to let him go out, and he left the house through an open window. This was not later than half-past nine in the morning. In the afternoon, between four and five o'clock, he returned to the house with a horse and wagon to take away the goods, but was again refused admittance by the plaintiff, and thereupon he went and procured the services of a locksmith, who picked the lock, and he entered and removed the goods, taking with him the goods in controversy.

The goods which the defendant attached as the goods of Jenkins were in the parlor on the first floor of the house, in which were also some of the goods in controversy, all of which were taken away by the defendant. The defendant also attached, as the property of Jenkins, and took away other goods of the plaintiff, which he now concedes to be the property of the...