Inhabitants of Brookline v. Sherman
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of certain personal property. Writ dated April 27, 1882. The case was referred to an auditor, who found that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was the owner of the goods replevied; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of said goods at the time they were taken from its possession, and was now entitled to the possession of the same.
Read the full summary
Replevin of certain personal property. Writ dated April 27, 1882. The case was referred to an auditor, who found that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was the owner of the goods replevied; and that the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of said goods at the time they were taken from its possession, and was now entitled to the possession of the same. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Bacon, J.5 who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows: The plaintiff put in evidence the report of the auditor; and the following facts were also proved or admitted.…
1Opinion of the CourtC. Allen, J.
The defendant has no valid ground of exception to any of the rulings made at the trial. The enginemen were a fluctuating and temporary body, and did not constitute a corporation, and were not endowed with legal succession. They did not own the property provided for the use of the company. They could not sell it for the purpose of dividing the proceeds among themselves, nor could they distribute the property itself among themselves. The town provided the engine and engine-house, and paid the enginemen. The property in controversy was for the use of such persons as should be members of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Perry v. StoweMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
3Cited by4 opinions
- Williamson v. Housing AuthoritySupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
- Odd Fellows Hall Ass'n v. McAllisterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. HoganDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1934
- Wall v. De MitkiewiczDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1896