Pine v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 10 November 1876 |
| Citation | 121 Mass. 296 |
| Parties | Albert W. Pine v. Hebron L. Morrison |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Essex. Tort for the conversion of a horse.
At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen J., without a jury, it was admitted that the defendant had, four days previous to the date of the writ therein, received possession of the horse in question on a writ of replevin in his favor and against one Oren E. Welch, under whom both the plaintiff and the defendant claimed title; the plaintiff under a bill of sale from Welch, dated August 10, 1874, and the defendant under a bill of sale from Welch, dated October 8, 1874. There was evidence tending to show a delivery of the horse by Welch to the plaintiff. There was evidence tending to prove, and the judge found, that the defendant knew that the title and right of possession of the horse were in the plaintiff, and fraudulently sued out the writ of replevin for the purpose of obtaining possession of the horse, and removing him from the Commonwealth, and depriving the plaintiff of him; and that he did, with that intent, obtain possession of the horse under the writ, and secretly remove him from the Commonwealth, and kept him concealed from the plaintiff. It was admitted that no demand had ever been made upon the defendant for the horse.
On this evidence, the defendant asked the judge to rule that there was no evidence of conversion, and that the plaintiff could not maintain this action without evidence of a demand. But the judge declined so to rule, and ruled that upon this evidence there was evidence of conversion, and found that there was a conversion by the defendant, and ordered judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant alleged exceptions.
Exceptions overruled, with double costs.
D. O. Allen for the defendant.
J. B. Keith & W. H. Niles, for the plaintiff, moved for double costs.
Getting possession of the plaintiff's horse by process against a third person, with the intention of fraudulently depriving the plaintiff of his property, and afterwards, taking the horse out of the Commonwealth, were sufficient evidence of a conversion.
Exceptions overruled, with double costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Everett v. Henderson
... ... it unlawful for the plaintiff to attach it. The writ of ... replevin referred to in Pine v. Morrison, 121 Mass ... 296, was not between ... [146 Mass. 98] ... the parties to that suit, and did not present for trial the ... issue ... ...
-
Crocker v. Atwood
...fraudulent attachment certainly did not purge the original wrong, but rather added to its force. Coughlin v. Ball, 4 Allen, 334; Pine v. Morrison, 121 Mass. 296; Moody v. Blake, 117 Mass. 23; Carter Kingman, 103 Mass. 517. The evidence objected to was rightly excluded. The question simply c......
-
Massachusetts Lubricant Corp. v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co.
...possession of a person with whom they were stored and carrying them away were held to be a conversion. To the same effect are Pine v. Morrison, 121 Mass. 296 and Geguzis v. Brockton Standard Shoe Co. 291 Mass. 368 , 371. The ruling, in substance and effect that the plaintiff did not have th......
- Hunt v. Salem