Fishell v. Morris

• Decision Date: 13 September 1889
• Citation: 18 A. 717,57 Conn. 547
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: FISHELL v. MORRIS.

18 A. 717

57 Conn. 547

FISHELL

v. MORRIS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Sept. 13, 1889.

Appeal from city court of New Haven; PICKETT, Judge.

J. P. Goodhart, for appellant. P. W. Chase, for appellee.

ANDREWS, C. J. The plaintiff brought an action of replevin against the defendant for a horse, a wagon, a harness, a whip, and two robes. The trial court rendered judgment that he retain possession of all the chattels but the horse, and that he should return the horse to the possession of the defendant. From that judgment the plaintiff appeals. The defendant is a livery-stable keeper. One Bohan, of whom the plaintiff bought all of the property, on or about the 17th (lay of November, 1887, he then being the owner, made a special contract with the defendant to keep and feed the horse for the sum of $18 a month. Bohan owned the horse up to December 1, 1888. During all that time the defendant continued to keep and feed the horse under the agreement; Bohan calling for, taking, temporarily using, and returning the horse at his pleasure, without objection on the part of the defendant on account of arrearages usually due for the keeping of the horse. The plaintiff bought the horse and the other property of Bohan on the said 1st day of December, 1888. Previous to that day Bohan had advertised the property for sale, and had requested and urged the plaintiff to buy the same. The defendant had full knowledge of such intended sale by Bohan. On that day Bohan was justly indebted to the defendant in the sum of $18 for the keeping and feeding of the horse. On the morning of that day Bohan took the horse and the other property from the defendant's stable, as he had been accustomed to do, with the knowledge and consent of the defendant, (although it did not appear that the defendant had knowledge that Bohan intended to sell the property on that day,) and, while away from the stable, again applied to the plaintiff to purchase the same, which the plaintiff did, and took all the chattels into his possession, and paid therefor in full. The plaintiff used the horse and wagon in his own business for a short time, and then, at the suggestion of and in company with Bohan, drove to the defendant's stable, for the purpose of engaging further keeping for the horse. Bohan introduced the plaintiff to the defendant, informed him that he (Bohan) had sold the horse to the plaintiff, and said he thought the plaintiff would like to board the horse there, and named $20 per month as the price to be paid therefor. The defendant received and stabled the horse. After he had done so, he inquired of the plaintiff if he had paid for the horse and the other property. The plaintiff replied that he had paid in full. The defendant then said to the plaintiff that he had a claim of $48 on the horse, for its keeping and feeding, and that the plaintiff must govern himself accordingly. The plaintiff said he should want to take the horse out the next day to use, whereupon the defendant said the horse could not be taken from his possession till the claim of $48 was paid. Afterwards, on the same day, the plaintiff made demand on the defendant to deliver to him the horse and the other articles, which the defendant refused. This suit was then brought. The plaintiff had no knowledge at the time he bought the property that Bohan was indebted to the defendant, and there was no claim that he acted otherwise than in good faith. The defendant claimed the right to detain the horse in his possession until the debt of $48 was paid, by virtue of his lien thereon for its keeping and feeding. The plaintiff, on the other hand, asked the court to rule that the lien of the defendant on the horse for its keeping and feeding was divested when the horse was taken from his...