Nichols v. Ruggles
| Citation | 76 Me. 25 |
| Parties | LEMUEL NICHOLS v. PAUL RUGGLES. |
| Decision Date | 20 February 1884 |
| Court | Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US) |
ON REPORT.
Replevin of a horse brought against a constable who had attached it as the property of James Newcomb, on a writ in favor of Carnillus K. Johnson. The plaintiff claimed title under the instrument recited in the head note, as he had been paid no part of the purchase money. The paper was never recorded and Johnson knew nothing of it nor of the plaintiff's claim thereunder.
John Varney, for the plaintiff, contended that the instrument under which he claimed title to the horse was not a note within the meaning of R. S., c. 111, § 5; that the legislative expression there found must be held to mean what is legally and commercially known as a promissory note. Newcomb was under contract with Nichols to carry the mail and was paid by Nichols ninety dollars and fifty cents a quarter and his agreement to pay for the horse was contingent upon receiving his compensation for mail service. It amounted to an agreement to pay for the horse in mail service.
Counsel cited Morris v. Lynde, 73 Me. 88; Bunker v Athearn, 35 Me. 364.
Wilson and Woodward, for the defendant, cited Shaw v. Wilshire, 65 Me. 485; 1 Pars. Notes and Bills, 24, and cases cited, 31; DeWolfe v. French, 51 Me. 420; Redman v. Adams, 51 Me. 429; Sears v. Wright, 24 Me. 278; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195.
The only question presented by the report in this case is whether the instrument under which the plaintiff claims title to the horse replevied should have been recorded under R. S., c. 111, § 5. If so the plaintiff fails in his title and in his action.
The statute provides that, " No agreement that personal property bargained and delivered to another, for which a note is given, shall remain the property of the payee till the note is paid, is valid, unless it is made and signed as a part of the note; nor when so made and signed in a note for more than thirty dollars, unless it is recorded like mortgages of personal property."
It is conceded that the instrument comes within the statute description in every respect except that it does not contain the note therein required. The objections are that the price to be paid was not payable in money and that its payment depended upon a contingency. But an examination will show that neither of these objections are well founded.
The statute uses the word " note" only, omitting the qualifying adjective " " promissory," and whether the construction is to be so limited as to apply only to such promissory notes are recognized by the commercial law with all the requisites required by that law, may well be doubted. It is certain that the term " note" without the qualification is often used in a more extensive sense than with it, and it is equally certain that when used to express a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The First National Bank of Hutchinson v. Lightner
...... Encycl. of L. 89.) A promise to pay a certain sum "out. of my next quarter's mail pay, which becomes due January. 1, 1883," was held, in Nichols v. Ruggles, 76. Me. 25, to be an absolute promise to pay a certain sum of. money. In Haussoullier v. Hartsinck, 7 Durn. &. E. (Eng.) 733, it was ......
-
First Nat. Bank v. Sullivan
......554, 5 N.E. 452, 54 Am. Rep. 737; Redman v. Adams, 51 Me. 429; Whitney v. Eliot National. Bank, 137 Mass. 351, 50 Am. Rep. 316; Nichols v. Ruggles, 76 Me. 25; Louisville Banking Co. v. Gray, 123 Ala. 251, 26 So. 205, 82 Am. St. Rep. 120;. Corbett v. Clark, 45 Wis. ......
-
Harries v. Courcier
...vs. Whitney-Central Trust and Savings Bank, 157 La. 249, 102 So. 325; Van Tassel vs. McGrail et al., 93 Wash. 380, 160 P. 1053; Nichols vs. Ruggles, 76 Me. 25; National Bank vs. Carpenter et al., 160 La. 1033, 107 So. 896. It is not seriously denied that the law, in this regard, is as we ha......
-
Campbell v. Atherton
...written instrument contained, either expressly or by necessary implication, a promise to pay the price stipulated in the writing. Nichols v. Ruggles, 76 Me. 25; Cunningham v. Trevitt, 82 Me. 145, 19 Atl. 110; Hill v. Nutter, 82 Me. 199, 19 Atl. When no such promise is expressed or necessari......