Pratt v. Boston Heel & Leather Co.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1883
• Citation: 134 Mass. 300
• Parties: Daniel S. Pratt v. Boston Heel and Leather Company
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

134 Mass. 300

Daniel S. Pratt v. Boston Heel and Leather Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

February 27, 1883

Suffolk. Tort for the conversion of fifteen bags of wool. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Knowlton J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

There are two actions relating to the same property brought against this defendant. This was the first, and was brought on May 25, 1881. The second was an action of replevin, brought by George F. Moore on June 2, 1881. Moore owned the fifteen bags of wool in question, and placed them in the hands of this plaintiff as his bailee; and the plaintiff kept it in a building belonging to the defendant.

This action was brought to recover the value of the wool, on January 15, 1881, by reason of an alleged wrongful holding of the wool, and the wool was attached by order of the plaintiff as security for the judgment which might be recovered.

The defendant afterwards dissolved the attachment by giving a bond, and took the wool into its possession again; and Moore by his action, replevied the wool on June 2, 1881, and still holds the same. Both actions were tried at October term 1881 of the Superior Court. This action was tried first by order of the court, and resulted in favor of the plaintiff; and it was found that the wool was worth forty-seven cents a pound on January 15, 1881. The replevin suit was then tried, and the court found for the defendant, solely on the ground that Moore had made no demand on the defendant for the wool before bringing his action; and that action was continued nisi by the court, to await the determination of this action, no order of return having been made. Upon the defendant's motion, and after hearing, a new trial was granted "on the issue of the value of the wool alone."

The case came on to be heard anew under said order at January term 1882; and the defendant objected to the admission of any testimony as to the value of the wool, on the ground that Moore, the owner, had replevied the wool, and still held it. The judge ruled that, under the order for a new trial, no questions were open to the defendant except such as were incidental to a determination of the value of the wool; and admitted the evidence.

The defendant asked the judge to rule that, although this plaintiff might have been justified in bringing his action on May 25, 1881, when Moore, on June 2, 1881, brought his action of...