Hopkins v. Maxwell

• Decision Date: 19 January 1898
• Parties: HOPKINS v. MAXWELL.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

39 A. 573

91 Me. 247

HOPKINS

v. MAXWELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 19, 1898.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Lincoln county.

Action by Solomon E. Hopkins against Noble Maxwell. Judgment on report for plaintiff, with interest from date of verdict.

L. M. Staples, for plaintiff.

C. D. Newell, for defendant.

STROUT, J. The rights of the parties depend upon the true construction of the following paper:

"Cooper's Mills, Aug. 23, 1894.

"Know all men by these presents, that I, S. E. Hopkins, this day leased to Weston Darling two team horses, about 13 hundred lbs., color one dark bay, the other red, valued at one hundred and twenty-five dollars. The condition of this lease is such that said Darling is to keep said horses in good condition, and is to have said horses providing he pays said S. E. Hopkins one hundred dollars and interest, twelve dollars, every week in cash or grain, at the going or market price, until the whole sum is paid in full. If said Darling fails in making his payments or any of them, said Hopkins may take said horses, and said Darling forfeits what he has paid or may pay; and said Darling is not to dispose of said horses in any way until this lease is satisfied. Furthermore, if said Darling fails in keeping and using said horses well, said Hopkins may take said horses without trespass.

"Weston Darling."

Darling sold the horses to defendant, and the plaintiff brings trover. The purchase price was not paid. The jury returned a verdict by consent for $82.60, and the case was reported to this court for a construction of the paper. It was not denied that defendant converted the horses to his own use.

Defendant claims that the agreement is within Rev. St. c. 111, § 5, which, as amended by chapter 11 of the Laws of 1891, provides that "no agreement that personal property bargained and delivered to another, for which a note is given, shall remain the property of the payee until the note is paid, is valid, unless it is made and signed as a part of the note; and no such agreement, although so made and signed, is valid, except as between the original parties to said agreement, unless it is recorded like mortgages of personal property." The paper was not recorded.

The statute applies only to cases where a note is given for the purchase money, or an express promise of payment, equivalent to a note. This transaction was a conditional sale, to operate a transfer of title, if Darling made the payments as...