Levinson v. Connors
| Decision Date | 26 November 1929 |
| Parties | LEVINSON v. CONNORS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Gibbs, Judge.
Suit by Aaron Levinson against Frank A. Connors. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed, and motion to dismiss appeal denied.
Earle I. J. Brown, of Boston, for appellant.
B. Shalit and L. G. Stone, both of Boston, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the defendant from a decree in favor of the plaintiff in a suit equity. There is no report of the evidence. There is no finding of the facts. The record consists of the bill as amended, the answer, the final decree and the appeal. The only question presented is whether as matter of law the decree could have been entered on the pleadings. Brogna v. Commissioner of Banks, 248 Mass. 241, 243, 142 N. E. 746. See O'Brien v. Gove, 208 Mass. 325, 94 N. E. 271.
Summarily stated, the allegations of the bill are that the plaintiff on December 9, 1927, purchased of the defendant certain chattels described in a bill of sale of that date, copy of which is annexed; that at the request of the defendant the plaintiff permitted the chattels to remain where they were and to be used by the defendant until such time as the plaintiff might demand possession of them; that the plaintiff had made such demand and the defendant had refused to permit the plaintiff to take them but kept the room locked where most of them were and denied access thereto to the plaintiff, and had removed some of them to another place. The prayers were for an injunction against removal, for a mandate to require the defendant to give to the plaintiff access to the chattels, and for general relief. By the final decree relief was granted substantially as prayed for.
[2] Both by the common law and by the Sales Act, title to specific goods in a deliverable conditin passes as between the parties by the contract of sale without actual or constructive delivery or payment of price, unless a different intention is shown. John B. Frey Co., Inc., v. S. Silk, Inc., 245 Mass. 534, 539, 140 N. E. 259; G. L. c. 106, § 21, rule 1.
The defendant has argued the case on the theory that the bill of sale, although absolute in form, was intended as security for a loan and not as an absolute transfer of title. There is nothing in the record to support such a contention. It cannot be considered.
The plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jewett v. Keystone Driller Co.
...those assumptions the conditional interest might pass to the buyer at once under rule 1, which declares the common law. Levinson v. Connors, 269 Mass. 209, 168 N. E. 736. If it was elsewhere, the seller under the contract was bound to transport it to that place in New Hampshire, and there d......
-
Gorey v. Guarente
...on the pleadings, and, if not, what decree should be entered. Dwyer v. Bratkoysky, 170 Mass. 502, 504, 49 N.E. 915;Levinson v. Connors, 269 Mass. 209, 210, 168 N.E. 736;Dondis v. Lash, 283 Mass. 353, 354, 186 N.E. 549;Novick v. Novick, Mass., 11 N.E.2d 481. See Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 244......
-
Plumer v. Houghton & Dutton Co.
...discloses no ground for disturbing that decree. Brogna v. Commissioner of Banks, 248 Mass. 241, 243, 142 N. E. 746;Levinson v. Connors, 269 Mass. 209, 210, 168 N. E. 736. If and so far as any matter touching this decree is open upon the report of material facts, it is included in what has b......
-
Whitney v. Whitney
...which are permissible under the pleadings. Brogna v. Commissioner of Banks, 248 Mass. 241, 243, 142 N.E. 746;Levinson v. Connors, 269 Mass. 209, 168 N.E. 736;Pouliot v. West India Fruit Co., 283 Mass. 182, 184, 186 N.E. 52;Milne v. Walsh, 285 Mass. 151, 153, 188 N.E. 624. The trial judge in......