Thorndike v. Bath
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin for two pianos. The defendant answered denying that the property was in the plaintiff, and asserting property in himself.
Read the full summary
Replevin for two pianos. The defendant answered denying that the property was in the plaintiff, and asserting property in himself. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence that he bought the pianos of one Lorenzo Matt, the maker, October 10, 1871, and that in November he took, and continued in, actual possession of them, until they were taken from him by the defendant upon a replevin writ brought by the defendant against Matt, when they were retaken by him from the defendant upon the writ in this action. The defendant testified that July 27,…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
In order that a sale of personal property should go into full effect, so that it cannot be defeated or set aside in favor of a subsequent bond fide purchaser of the same property, it is necessary that the first purchaser should show that he had perfected his title by having had actual delivery of it to himself, or by something equivalent thereto. Lanfear v. Sumner, 17 Mass. 110. Parsons v. Dickinson, 11 Pick. 352. Packard v. Wood, 4 Gray, 307. Veazie v. Somerby, 5 Allen, 280.
But it often happens, especially in the case of bulky articles, that an effectual delivery is made, although it does…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Barrett v. GoddardU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1822
3Cited by12 opinions
- Conrad v. FisherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Shaul v. HarringtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Thacher v. MoorsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
- Norwegian Plow Co. v. HanthornWisconsin Supreme Court · 1888
- Dempsey v. GardnerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.