Lancaster v. Stanetsky

• Decision Date: 22 May 1915
• Citation: 108 N.E. 1060,221 Mass. 312
• Parties: LANCASTER v. STANETSKY et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

221 Mass. 312

108 N.E. 1060

LANCASTER v. STANETSKY et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 22, 1915

COUNSEL

G. Austin Sanders, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Walter A. Buie and Adolphus M. Burroughs, both of Boston, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY, J.

The judge before whom the case was tried without a jury, having found for the plaintiff, the only questions are whether the evidence as matter of law warranted the finding, and if so, whether any of the defendant's requests for rulings should have been given. American Malting Co. v. Souther Brewing Co., 194 Mass. 89, 80 N.E. 526. The exceptions purport to recite at length all the material evidence. It is conflicting. But the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony was for the presiding judge. A detailed recapitulation is unnecessary. It is sufficient to say that if the evidence introduced by the plaintiff was believed, the racing machine had been stored on the premises of the carbonator company where it remained at the time of the foreclosure of the mortgage. It is of course plain that the purchaser at the sale, having acquired no title to the machine, the defendant, who subsequently bought from the purchaser, acquired none. And if the defendant although acting in good faith thereafter exercised dominion over the plaintiff's property no demand was necessary before bringing an action for conversion. Gilmore v. Newton, 9 Allen, 171, 85 Am. Dec. 749.

The judge could find, that when the defendant took possession of the premises he knew the machine belonged to the plaintiff by whom he was notified how it was packed and marked as well as of the location where it was stored. Its subsequent sale either in whole or in part by the defendant when he disposed by auction of the goods and chattels purchased, was a conversion. Lorain Steel Co. v. Norfolk & Bristol St. Ry., 187 Mass. 500, 506, 73 N.E. 646. It is true, as the defendant contends, that to reach this conclusion he must have disregarded the defendant's evidence, but this is not an error of law. The requests were therefore properly denied and the exceptions must be overruled.

So ordered.