Lord v. Buchanan

• Decision Date: 31 January 1897
• Citation: 69 Vt. 320,37 A. 1048
• Parties: LORD et al. v. BUCHANAN.
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

37 A. 1048

69 Vt. 320

LORD et al.

v. BUCHANAN.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Washington.

Jan. Term, 1897.

Exceptions from Washington county court; Ross, Chief Judge.

Action by Lord, Stone & Co. against William H. Buchanan. Trial by the court. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs except. Affirmed.

T. R. Gordon and G. W. Wing, for plaintiffs.

Frank J. Martin, for defendant.

TYLER, J. The plaintiffs sold a stove to a Mrs. Harroun by the following contract: "Berlin, Vt., Sept. 27th, 1894. For value received. I promise to pay Lord, Stone & Co., or bearer, the first day of November, February, May, and August next, thirty-two dollars, with interest. The consideration of this note is one Model Crown portable cooking range, which I have received of said Lord, Stone & Co. Nevertheless, it is understood and agreed between the undersigned and said Lord, Stone & Co. that the title of the abovementioned property does not pass to me, and, until this note is paid, the title to the aforesaid property shall remain with the said Lord, Stone & Co., who shall have the right in case of nonpayment at maturity of said note, without process of law, to enter and retake, and may enter and retake, immediate possession of said property, whereever it may be, and remove the same. Mrs. J. Harroun." The defendant, as a public officer, in the foreclosure of a chattel mortgage against the vendee's husband, entered her dwelling house, took the stove, and duly advertised and sold it; the plaintiffs and the vendee making known to the defendant their respective claims, and forbidding the sale.

The vendee sued the defendant in trespass for breaking and entering her dwelling house, converting the stove to his use, and depriving her thereof. Judgment was rendered for her to recover the value of the property and special damages, and no exception was taken. This suit was brought a few days later, is in trespass and trover, and special damages are alleged, for that "the plaintiffs were for a long time prevented from transacting their necessary business, and were put to great trouble and expense in being deprived of the stove." During the trial the defendant conceded that the stove in controversy was not the one included in the mortgage, and did not seek to justify the taking. The plaintiffs claim that they held the title to the stove, and, as there was an overdue payment, that they were entitled to the possession; that the taking was an invasion of their right, for which they should have...