Jackson v. Innes
| Decision Date | 03 January 1919 |
| Parties | JACKSON v. INNES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Report from Municipal Court of Boston, Appellate Division.
Action of tort for conversion of a boat by Willard B. Jackson against William F. Innes. There was finding for plaintiff, and the case was reported to the appellate division of the municipal court of the city of Boston, which dismissed the report, and defendant appeals to the Supreme Judicial Court. Order dismissing report reversed.
At the trial there was evidence tending to snow that the plaintiff owned the boat in question, and that between the night of June 16, 1914, and the morning of June 17, 1914, said boat was taken away by some person, and from June 20, 1914, was in the possession of the defendant, who upon request delivered same to the plaintiff on August 31, 1914.
The plaintiff testified that said boat was changed very substantially while in the possession of the defendant and that the cost of restoring said boat to its original condition was $88, and had depreciated $50 in value. It also appeared from the testimony of the plaintiff that said boat was built and designed as a pleasure boat for use by him during the spring and fall and for letting during the summer; that he had done nothing towards letting the boat in question during the summer because it was out of his possession.
The following question was put to the plaintiff: ‘What was the fair market value for the use of said boat from June 20, 1914, to September 30, 1914?’ on direct examination and was admitted against the objection of the defendant, and the witness answered, ‘One hundred fifty (150) dollars.’ The defendant requested that said ruling be reported.
James E. Graves testified that boats of this kind could be let by the week or season, and that the price therefor by the season was from $125 to $130. The following question was put to said witness, Graves: ‘What was the fair market value for the use of said boat from June 20, 1914, to September 30, 1914?’ on direct examination and was admitted against the objection of the defendant, and the witness answered, ‘From $125 to $130,’ The defendant requested that said ruling be reported.
On cross-examination he testified that it was possible that one owning such a boat would not be able to let same during the summer season, and that the same was a pleasure boat and let for pleasure purposes.
Stone & Jones and Eliot N. Jones, all of Boston, for plaintiff.
Wm. E. & Richard L. Sisk, of Lynn, for defendant.
The declaration alleges in substance that the defendant on or about the 17th day of June, 1914, with force and arms took and carried away the boat in question, and converted it to his own use, and for a long time deprived the plaintiff of the use, and destroyed portions of the upper works, and made various alterations, and broke, defaced and otherwise injured it, whereby the boat was rendered less valuable for the purposes of the plaintiff, and putting him to ‘great labor and expense to restore the boat to the condition in which it was when taken by the defendant.’ The only evidence in support of the material allegations of asportation and conversion was given by the plaintiff, who testified, that during ‘the night of June 16, and the morning of June 17, 1914, some person took the boat which from June 20 to August 31 was in possession of the defendant,’ when at his request the defendant delivered it to him. The record is silent as to the circumstances under which the defendant came into possession. But on the plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence it further appeared that the defendant had made changes which required a substantial outlay by the plaintiff before the boat could be restored to its former condition.
The defendant offered no evidence, and even if it would be no defense that he had acted in good faith and in ignorance as to who was the owner, or what the owner's rights were, the circumstances under which it came into his possession do not appear. It being plain that as he could derive no title, right or authority from the plaintiff whose ownership is unquestioned, and who never voluntarily had parted with the boat, the defendant fails to show any justification for his intermeddling, and the trial judge rightly refused to rule that the plaintiff could not recover. Stanley v. Gaylord, 1 Cush. 580,48 Am. Dec. 643,Varney v. Curtis, 213 Mass. 309, 313, 100 N. E. 650, L. R. A. 1916A, 629, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 340, and cases cited. The finding that he had converted it to his own use was warranted. Scollard v. Brooks, 170 Mass. 445, 448, 49 N. E. 741.
The second request, that the plaintiff can recover only nominal damages, and the fifth request, that ‘there is no evidence as to when the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George v. Coolidge Bank & Trust Co.
...of the property when converted and when returned, plus damages for loss of use during the period of wrongful detention. Jackson v. Innes, 231 Mass. 558, 560, 121 N.E. 489; Lawyers Mortgage Inv. Corp. of Boston v. Paramount Laundries, Inc., 287 Mass. 357, 361, 191 N.E. 398; Food Specialties,......
-
Sharp v. Hylas Yachts, LLC
...804 F.2d 773, 782 (1st Cir. 1986) (quoting Skou v. United States, 478 F.2d 343, 346 (5th Cir. 1973) ); see also Jackson v. Innes, 231 Mass. 558, 121 N.E. 489, 491 (1919) (citing The Conqueror for the proposition that a defendant "cannot avoid liability" for "the loss of the use of [a] boat ......
-
Lawyers' Mortg. Inv. Corp. of Boston v. Paramount Laundries, Inc.
...Cutting v. Grand Trunk Railway, 13 Allen, 381, 388;Hall v. Paine, 224 Mass. 62, 112 N. E. 153, L. R. A. 1917C, 737;Jackson v. Innes, 231 Mass. 558, 560, 121 N. E. 489;Koski v. Haskins, 236 Mass. 346, 349, 128 N. E. 427. Upon satisfaction of the damages, the title to the goods passes to the ......
-
In re Halmar Distributors, Inc.
...include the value of the personalty at the time of conversion and interest thereon from the date of conversion. See Jackson v. Innes, 231 Mass. 558, 121 N.E. 489, 491 (1919); Hall v. Paine, 224 Mass. 62, 77, 112 N.E. 153 (1916). Interest is awarded by law so that a person wrongfully deprive......