Scollard v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 01 March 1898 |
| Citation | 49 N.E. 741,170 Mass. 445 |
| Parties | SCOLLARD v. BROOKS et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
William P. Hale, for plaintiff.
Harvey N. Shepard and Charles H. Stebbins, for defendants.
We cannot say that there was no evidence upon which the plaintiff was entitled to go to the jury. There was some evidence of a gift and delivery of the articles. The auditor so found, and the testimony of the plaintiff and of her sister furnished some evidence to the same effect. It would seem that it was not expected that the plaintiff would take the things away before the donor's death, and one or two articles of wearing apparel were used by the donor after the alleged gift. This would have well warranted, but it did not absolutely require, a finding that there was no present delivery. While we are not inclined to relax the rules calling for strict proof in cases of this kind, we are unable to say that there was no evidence at all; and, no doubt, the jury were clearly instructed in the law.
There was also some evidence of a conversion by the two defendants now before the court. Conversion may be shown by the exercise of control over the property, inconsistent with the right of the owner, and by excluding him from the possession or depriving him of it. Luddington v. Goodhow, 168 Mass. 223, 46 N.E. 627; Brintnall v. Smith, 166 Mass. 253, 44 N.E. 223; Edmunds v. Hill, 133 Mass. 445; Spooner v. Manchester, 133 Mass. 270; Spooner v. Holmes, 102 Mass. 503. The auditor found that Mr. Brooks and Miss Richardson both did this. The plaintiff also testified that Mr. Brooks told her she could not have the things, and that Miss Richardson told her, "No; you shall not take them." This, with some other evidence, had some tendency to show a conversion. Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trout v. Farmers' Trust Co. of Newark
...Barnum v. Reed, 136 Ill. 388, 26 N. E. 572; Whalen v. Milholland, 89 168 A. 211 Md. 199, 43 A. 45, 44 L. R. A. 208; Scollard v. Brooks, 170 Mass. 445, 49 N. E. 741; Kimball v. Green, 148 Mich. 298, 111 N. W. 761; Snyder v. Harris, 61 N. J. Eq. 480, 48 A. 329; Ridden v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572......
-
Castle v. Persons
......490. A gift causa mortis,. like a gift inter vivos, is a question of fact for the jury. Dunn v. Bank, 109 Mo. 90, 18 S.W. 1139; Scollard. v. Brooks, 170 Mass. 445, 49 N.E. 741. . . The. judgment of the court below should be reversed, and a new. trial, granted and it ......
-
Clapp v. Haynes
...of the lease in violation of its terms and a wrongful exercise of dominion and control over ATT's property. See Scollard v. Brooks, 170 Mass. 445, 448, 49 N.E. 741 (1898); Row v. Home Sav. Bank, 306 Mass. 522, 525, 29 N.E.2d 552 (1940); Restatement (Second) Torts § 222A (1965); Prosser, Tor......
-
Bavarian Nordic a/S v. Acambis Inc.
...that conversion is not vindicable unless a defendant has exercised exclusive control over the property. See, e.g., Scollard v. Brooks, 170 Mass. 445, 49 N.E. 741, 741 (1898) ("Conversion may be shown by the exercise of control over the property, inconsistent with the right of the owner, and......