Patchin v. Rowell

• Decision Date: 19 December 1912
• Citation: 85 A. 511,86 Conn. 372
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PATCHIN et al. v. ROWELL et al.

85 A. 511

86 Conn. 372

PATCHIN et al.

v. ROWELL et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

Dec. 19, 1912.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; Howard B. Scott, Judge.

Action of replevin by Walter E. Patchin and another against George P. Rowell and others. From a judgment for defendant named, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

The defendant Rowell subleased two offices adjoining and connected with his own office to Lanyon. Rowell owned all of the furniture and fixtures in Lanyon's offices except the goods replevied, and used the offices at his convenience. The plaintiffs sold the goods, which are the subject of the replevy as against Rowell, on July 25, 1908, and which Lanyon has not paid for, and these were placed in Lanyon's offices. Within a week prior to October 3, 1908, Lanyon sold said goods to Rowell for value, viz., an indebtedness then due Rowell by him. There was no change of possession of said goods at the sale. The plaintiffs prior to October 26, 1908, arranged to sell Lanyon further office furniture upon his giving them a conditional bill of sale of the goods to be sold, the said goods sold July 25, 1908, and certain personal property located in Lanyon's house and purchased of plaintiffs. Prior to the execution of the bill of sale on said October 26th Lanyon verbally told plaintiffs that he placed said goods in their possession. There was in fact no other change of possession as to the plaintiffs than this, and Lanyon continued to occupy said offices, conduct said business, and have possession of said goods as before the execution of the bill of sale, and so remained until about November 1, 1908, when he ceased to occupy said offices, and Rowell went into their occupancy and took and held possession of said goods until replevied, without knowledge of plaintiffs' claim or said bill of sale until November 13, 1908. This bill of sale was given for the purpose of securing the plaintiffs for the goods sold at that time to Lanyon, and to secure the Indebtedness from him to them by reason of the sale of July 25th and other sales up to October 26, 1908.

The only motive moving the plaintiffs to procure said bill of sale was to obtain security for the balance owed them and for the new purchase. This bill of sale as to the goods replevied of Rowell was duly recorded November 13, 1908, and the plaintiffs did not know at this date that the said goods included in the sale of July 25th were not the property of Lanyon, and their first knowledge that their ownership was claimed by Rowell, by virtue of said sale to him by Lanyon, was on November 13, 1908. No demand was ever made on Rowell for said goods which were replevied March 8, 1910, and at said time the officer replevying scattered the contents of a filing case over and about the floor of the offices of Rowell, which compelled a rearrangement of the papers and the purchase of a new filing case. The replevy occasioned considerable comment both in the public prints and otherwise, and said Itowell was subjected to annoyance and mortification. Judgment was rendered for defendant for return of said goods and for $25 damages.

This action is against Rowell and Clark replevying certain goods in the possession of Rowell, in which Clark had no interest, and certain goods in the possession of Clark, in which Rowell had no interest, and joined Lanyon as a party defendant. All of said goods had originally been sold by plaintiffs to Lanyon. By agreement of the plaintiffs and Rowell, and with the consent of the court, a separate trial of the issues between them was had, and the Supreme Court is requested to review these issues, although the issues between the plaintiffs and the other defendants have not yet been tried.

Edward K. Nicholson, of Bridgeport, for appellants.

Russell Porter Clark, of Greenwich, for appellee Rowell.

WHEELER, J. (after stating the facts as above). The facts found show that the sale of goods by the plaintiffs to Lanyon on July 25, 1908, was an absolute sale, and that delivery was then made of the goods so sold. The title to these goods, therefore, passed to Lanyon...