Lewis v. Beckler

• Decision Date: 03 January 1888
• Citation: 12 A. 627
• Parties: LEWIS v. BECKLER.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

12 A. 627

LEWIS

v. BECKLER.¹

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

January 3, 1888.

Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Oxford county.

Trover to recover the value of a cow alleged to have been converted by defendant. The exceptions were to the ruling of the presiding justice directing that judgment be entered for defendant upon the following agreed statement: "One Osgood Drew bargained the cow which is the subject of this suit to one Charles S. Lewis, December 19, 1885, taking a 'Holmes Note,' so called, for the unpaid balance at date of said note; which note, assignment, and certificate of record thereon are made a part of this case. Said note was duly recorded in Albany town records, where both parties resided, on December 21, 1885. Nothing was ever paid said Drew on said note, who on the 21st day of April, 1886, assigned the same, for a valuable consideration, to the defendant. Said assignment was duly recorded in the town records of Albany, June 18, 1886. Nothing was paid said defendant on said note, and on the 21st day of said June said defendant took said cow on said note from the premises of the plaintiff. After the defendant had reached the highway with said cow, plaintiff's husband, said Charles S. Lewis, acting, as he said, in behalf of said plaintiff, tendered said defendant on the same day ten dollars and fifty cents in satisfaction of said claim, and demanded a return of the cow, which was refused by the defendant. Upon the foregoing statement the parties agree to submit the above-entitled cause to the presiding justice, reserving the right of exception. It is agreed that the value of the cow in controversy is the sum of twenty-five dollars."

S. F. Gibson, for plaintiff. A. S. Kimball, for defendant.

PER CURIAM. The court is of opinion that the exceptions must be overruled. From the agreed statement of facts upon which the case was tried, it does not appear that the plaintiff had in any way acquired her husband's interest in the cow. He still had the right to redeem, if not too late. Nor does it appear that the plaintiff had such possession of the cow as will give her the right to maintain the action. An agreement that the defendant took the cow from the plaintiff's premises, considering that her husband had the right of redemption, is not equivalent to an agreement that the defendant took it from her possession. As it does not appear that the plaintiff had either title or possession, she has no right of action. Exceptions...