Pratt v. Maynard

• Decision Date: 09 December 1874
• Citation: 116 Mass. 388
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Richard W. Pratt & another v. James A. Maynard

116 Mass. 388

Richard W. Pratt & another v. James A. Maynard

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

December 9, 1874

[Syllabus Material]

Suffolk. Replevin of a locomotive boiler. Writ dated June 14 1869. The answer set up the ownership of the replevied property in Isaac M. Cate, and the defendant's right of possession in the same as Cate's agent and keeper. The case was heard in the Superior Court, without a jury, by Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions in substance as follows:

In 1867, 1868 and 1869, the plaintiffs employed William H. Snow, a boiler-maker, to repair and build boilers and machinery for them, and usually paid said Snow therefor in bank checks as soon as such work was done. During these years, Cate was selling iron and other materials, and lending money to Snow to enable him to carry on his business, and as security therefor took mortgages of Snow's stock and manufactured property, and also had for the same purpose, Snow's order to the plaintiffs, accepted by them on October 28, 1867, to pay to Cate all moneys due and to become due to Snow from the plaintiffs on account of his work done for them. The plaintiffs, late in 1868, knew that Cate was furnishing Snow with iron and other materials, and had large claims against him, and supposed that he held as security therefor Snow's stock and manufactured property. They were several times urged by Cate in the summer and autumn of 1868 to make payments to him on account of work done by Snow for them. Four bills, chiefly for repairs, were in the early part of 1868 rendered by Snow to the plaintiffs, on account of which the plaintiffs gave checks to Snow for small sums, and some of these checks were indorsed by Snow to Cate. At that time the plaintiffs had no knowledge of Cate's connection with Snow's business, beside that derived from these indorsements. The boiler replevied was one of two boilers ordered to be manufactured by Snow for them in June and July, 1868, and the boiler not replevied was completed and delivered to the plaintiffs in September or October, 1868. Cate, in the autumn of 1868, knew of the order for the two boilers, and that the price of them was to be about $ 1350. The replevied boiler was completed by Snow before December, 1868, but not delivered to the plaintiffs otherwise than by placing it on a lot of land in the rear of Snow's shop by direction of the plaintiffs, acquiesced in by Snow. This arrangement was made before the replevied boiler was completed. The boiler remained there until June, 1869, when Cate took possession of it by his agent, the defendant, and kept it until the plaintiffs replevied it in this action.

In December, 1868, Snow rendered a bill to the plaintiffs for work done, which included the price of the replevied boiler, and amounted to $ 1901.60, and this bill was paid by the plaintiffs to Snow by various sums in cash at different dates, and by a promissory note for $ 1400, dated December 22, 1868. This note was received by Cate from Snow on December 26, 1868, indorsed by Cate, its net proceeds put to Snow's credit in account with Cate, and on its maturity it was paid by the plaintiffs.

The replevied boiler, with other personal property, was the subject of one of a series of mortgages made by Snow to Cate in 1868, and duly recorded as made. Notice of his intention to foreclose the mortgage applying to the replevied boiler and other property was given by Cate to Snow on May 6, 1869 and on May 7, 1869, Snow released to Cate all his right and interest in the property to which it applied. Thereupon Cate, having taken possession of the replevied boiler and the other property, to which said mortgage and the proceedings for foreclosure and release applied, sold the same, excepting the replevied boiler, which he put into the keeping of the defendant. The proceeds of the mortgaged property thus sold amounted to about $ 400; and this sum, together with the value of the replevied boiler, which was about $ 600, was not sufficient to pay the debt due from Snow to Cate, and secured by that mortgage. The only evidence in the case was the report of an auditor, who reported the facts herein stated, and no other facts, and who reported no conclusions or findings upon the legal effect of the facts reported by him, or any...