Harrington v. King

• Decision Date: 20 November 1876
• Citation: 121 Mass. 269
• Parties: Arthur Harrington v. William King
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

121 Mass. 269

Arthur Harrington v. William King

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

November 20, 1876

Bristol.Tort for the conversion of certain household goods.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen J., it appeared that the plaintiff received the goods under the following agreement signed by him: "Received of Thomas O. Falvey 15 Weir Street, Taunton, the following described goods and chattels, amounting in total value to fifty-eight dollars and seven cents, to wit: [Here followed a description of the goods.]And for which I promised to pay $ 58 7/100 in monthly instalments of seven dollars, due and payable on the thirtieth of each month until full payment has been made.It is distinctly understood and agreed that all sad goods and chattels shall remain the exclusive property of said Thomas O. Falvey, and that I shall obtain no ownership therein until full payment has been made for the same according to this agreement; and I hereby authorize the said Thomas O. Falvey or his agent, to take possession and remove said goods from my house whenever I shall for ten days neglect to pay the monthly instalments, I forfeiting all that has been paid thereon.It is mutually understood that in no case will goods be exchanged or taken back except by forfeiture, and that said goods shall not be abused by other than ordinary usage.In no case are the above described goods and chattels to be removed from the premises now occupied by me on Dighton Road in the city of Taunton, without the written consent of the said Thomas O. Falvey.Any violation of the above conditions shall be considered trover and conversion."

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiff received of Thomas O. Falvey certain household goods, upon the conditions and stipulations contained in the above agreement.There was also evidence that the plaintiff had removed the goods from place to place in Taunton, other than that specified in the agreement, without the knowledge and consent of Falvey, and had failed to pay the instalments of the price for the goods, according to the terms of the agreement; that a year or more after the goods had been received by the plaintiff, he broke up housekeeping in Taunton, going to Pawtucket, Rhode Island, and his wife and child to New Bedford, leaving the goods in the house last occupied, in the care of a brother, who only lodged there; that a month or more after so leaving Taunton he returned, and on going to the house, for the purpose of removing the goods to New Bedford, without notifying Falvey of such purpose, found that the goods had been disposed of or sold by the brother, and some of them to the defendant, an auction and commission merchant; that thereupon the plaintiff made a demand on the defendant for the same, and his refusal to deliver them was relied on to prove the conversion alleged.It also appeared that Falvey, after the alleged conversion, made a demand on the defendant for the same goods, but the defendant did not give them up.

Upon this evidence, the defendant asked the judge to rule, as matter of law, that, at the time of the alleged...