Keith v. Maguire
| Citation | 48 N.E. 1090,170 Mass. 210 |
| Parties | KEITH v. MAGUIRE. |
| Decision Date | 08 January 1898 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
E.M. Johnson, for plaintiff.
Frank N. Nay, for defendant.
The only ground upon which the plaintiff contends that she can maintain this action is that no notice was given to her to appear in the proceeding for a sale of the goods under Pub.St. c. 192, § 25. This section provides for a notice to the "owner" of the goods, and her contention is that, although her husband stored his and her goods in his name, with her full knowledge and approval, still, as she was the owner of some of the goods, she was entitled to notice. We are of opinion that this contention is not tenable. The word "owner" is not a technical term. It is not confined to the person who has the absolute right in a chattel, but also applies to the person who has the possession and control of it. Thus it has been said in this commonwealth, in Hartford v. Brady, 114 Mass. 466 470,-a case under Gen.St. c. 25, § 25 (Pub.St. c. 36, § 27) by which the owner of cattle is made liable for injury done by them: "The word 'owner' is intended to include the person in whom is the general property in the animals, while it embraces also those who are in possession of them under a special title, or by virtue of any lien." See, also, Wisconsin River Log--Driving Ass'n v. D.F. Comstock Lumber Co., 72 Wis. 464, 40 N.W. 146; Hughes v. Sutherland, 7 Q.B.Div. 160; Lewis v. Arnold, L.R. 10 Q.B. 245; Reg. v. St Marylebone, 20 Q.B.Div. 415; Dawson v. Railway Co., L.R 8 Exch. 8. There are other cases where the word "owner" has been held to mean the person in possession and control, and not to include the absolute owner. Camp v. Rogers, 44 Conn. 291; Caudwell v. Hanson, L.R. 7 Q.B. 55; Meiklereid v. West, 1 Q.B.Div. 428. Section 24, c. 192, Pub.St. provides: "Whoever has a lien *** for money due to him on account of work and labor, care and diligence, or money expended on or about personal property by reason of any contract express or implied, if such money is not paid within sixty days after a demand in writing delivered to the debtor, or left at his usual place of abode, if within this commonwealth, or made by letter addressed to him at his usual place of abode without the commonwealth, and deposited in the post office to be sent to him, may apply by petition" to certain courts named "for an order for the sale of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Horton
...of the lien claimant as at common law. (1 Jones on Liens, Sec. 723, and cases cited; Huntsman v. Lumber Co., 29 S.E. 838; Keith v. Maguire, (Mass.) 48 N.E. 1090.) 2857 merely provides that where there are liens of the kind mentioned they shall be concurrent, and Section 2858 provides merely......
-
Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation v. City of Springfield
... ... 58, Section 24, as amended. The term ... "owner" is one of flexible meaning depending upon ... the setting within which it is employed. Keith v ... Maguire, 170 Mass. 210 , 212. Downey v. Bay State ... Street Railway, 225 Mass. 281 , 284. Animal Rescue ... League of Boston v ... ...
-
Hare v. Young
...article of personal property and who holds himself out as the owner thereof, is presumed to be the owner. (29 Cyc. 1550; Keith v. Maguire, 170 Mass. 210, 48 N.E. 1090; Hornbein v. Blanchard, 4 Colo. App. 92, 35 P. The leases in question should have been recorded within a reasonable time aft......
-
Comm'r of Corps. & Taxation v. City of Springfield
...§ 24, as amended. The term ‘owner’ is one of flexible meaning depending upon the setting within which it is employed. Keith v. Maguire, 170 Mass. 210, 212, 48 N.E. 1090.Downey v. Bay State Street R., 225 Mass. 281, 284, 114 N.E. 207.Animal Rescue League of Boston v. Assessors of Bourne, 310......