Joyce v. Sage Bros. Co.

• Decision Date: 18 May 1910
• Citation: 91 N.E. 996,206 Mass. 9
• Parties: JOYCE v. SAGE BROS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

206 Mass. 9

91 N.E. 996

JOYCE v. SAGE BROS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 18, 1910

COUNSEL

J. S. Sullivan, R. S. Teeling, and H. A. Wagner for plaintiff.

Stebins Storer & Burbank, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON C.J.

This is an action for the conversion of a secondhand steam power carbonator. Under the evidence most favorable to the defendant corporation, it appeared that the plaintiff, in the spring of 1904, left the carbonator with the defendant under an agreement which was expressed in a writing as follows:

'Boston, May 6, 1904.

'This is to certify that we, the undersigned, have received of C. H. Joyce, of Lowell, Massachusetts, one new Era steam power carbonator on sale, which, when sold and paid for by purchaser, the said Joyce to have two hundred dollars net, the undersigned to guarantee said amount or return of said machine. Any damage to said machine from fire or other causes is at the risk of said Joyce.

'Sage Brothers Company.

'U. V. Sage.'

In July, 1905, the defendant made a written contract with the firm of Burns Bros. for a conditional sale or lease of a certain electric carbonator, to be paid for in installments, the title to remain in the defendant until full payment was made. The carbonator was sent on trial for 30 days. As it did not prove satisfactory to Burns Bros., the defendant, about September 15th of that year, took it back and replaced it with the plaintiff's carbonator, which was taken by Burns Bros. under the same contract as the first. As a part of the transaction, Burns Bros. gave a number of nonnegotiable installment notes, payable to the defendant. The plaintiff was not a party to the contract and was unknown to Burns Bros. Before delivering the plaintiff's carbonator to Burns Bros., the defendant thoroughly overhauled and repaired it at its own expense, replacing worn parts with new, all without the knowledge of the plaintiff, and at a cost of $75. The plaintiff, having ascertained what had been done, brought this action in April, 1906. Upon these facts the judge ruled that the defendant was guilty of a conversion of the property, and the defendant took an exception to this ruling.

Under the agreement in writing, the only authority that the defendant had over the plaintiff's carbonator was to sell it for him and to receive payment for it, giving him the proceeds up to

$200 and keeping the balance for itself; ...