Edwards v. Frank
| Decision Date | 22 April 1879 |
| Citation | 40 Mich. 616 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | William S. Edwards v. William Frank |
Submitted April 11, 1879
Error to Wayne. Submitted April 11. Decided April 22.
Judgment reversed with costs and a new trial granted.
Edwards & Chambers for plaintiff in error.
James W. Romeyn for defendant in error. One cannot maintain trover unless title has vested in him. McDonough v. Sutton 35 Mich. 1; Chambers v. Hill, 34 Mich. 523.
Frank is a hotel keeper in Detroit who had a board bill against one Jacobson, a traveling agent for A. C. Mather & Co. of Chicago, and held a trunk of goods to secure his lien. Edwards under authority from Mather & Co. went to Frank's hotel and desired to obtain the trunk, on which Frank had and claimed no other lien. Having finally agreed on its amount, Edwards paid and Frank accepted it. The trunk was thereupon moved forward into the front part of the hotel and turned over to Edwards, who received the key at the same time from Jacobson, and who left it until the contents could be examined to ascertain whether anything was missing. During the same day Frank sent the trunk to the express office. The case does not show for what purpose it was sent there or where it was to be sent. Edwards warned the express agent not to ship it, and went to see Frank, who promised to have it returned, but the shipment had already taken place.
The court below excluded evidence of a written order from Mather & Co. on Jacobson to deliver him the trunk and samples in his possession, and held that Edwards had no right of action, and could not maintain trover for the conversion.
We think the court erred in so holding. Jacobson had acquiesced in the demand of Edwards, and had turned over the key of the trunk to him. Frank had accepted payment of his lien, and had also recognized the right of Edwards and put the trunk at his disposal. He was thenceforward no more than a bailee. There is no evidence in the record showing anything inconsistent with the original right of Edwards to demand and have the property, and no evidence that Mather & Co. had interfered, or that Frank had either forwarded or been requested to forward the trunk to them. So far as this record shows, no one but Edwards had any relations with Frank in the matter.
But Edwards, having advanced money to pay the landlord's lien, had a right to retain it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taugher v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, a Corp.
...Co. v. Parks, 54 Ill. 294; Esmay v. Fanning, 5 How. Pr. 228; Coykendall v. Eaton, 55 Barb. 188; Bissell v. Starr, 32 Mich. 298; Edwards v. Frank, 40 Mich. 616; Hicks v. Lyle, 46 Mich. 488, 9 N.W. 529; Barnum v. Stone, 27 Mich. 336; Merz v. Chicago & N.W. R. Co. 86 Minn. 33, 90 N.W. 7; Angel......
-
Jones v. Charles P. Kellogg & Co.
...Bartlett v. Hoyt, 29 N.H. (9 Foster) 317; Ward v. Wood Co., 13 Nev. 44; Gilson v. Wood, 20 Ill. 37; Brown v. Ware, 25 Me. 411; Edwards v. Frank, 40 Mich. 616; & G. S. Rld. Co. v. Tabor, 13 Colo. 41. Title to personal property can generally be proved only by proof of possession, for, as a ge......
-
Gibbons v. Farwell
...R. Co. v. Parks, 54 Ill. 294;Esmay v. Fanning, 5 How.Pr. 228;) as is also a misdelivery, (Bissell v. Starr, 32 Mich. 298;Edwards v. Frank, 40 Mich. 616;Hicks v. Lyle, 46 Mich. 488;S.C. 9 N.W.Rep. 529;Barnum v. Stone, 27 Mich. 335.) A carrier claiming that a sheriff seized goods must show hi......
-
Gibbons v. Farwell
...Cent. R. Co. v. Parks, 54 Ill. 294; Esmay v. Fanning, 5 How.Pr. 228;) as is also a misdelivery, (Bissell v. Starr, 32 Mich. 298; Edwards v. Frank, 40 Mich. 616; Hicks Lyle, 46 Mich. 488; S.C. 9 N.W. 529; Barnum v. Stone, 27 Mich. 335.) A carrier claiming that a sheriff seized goods must sho......