Winslow v. Tarbox
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Daniel D. Smith, of Boston, on the 22d of April, 1836, being sole owner of brig 31ary Mart, conveyed, by absolute bill of sale, one half the brig to Samuel Tarbox, of Westport, in Massachusetts, for the alleged consideration of $1,100, to secure a note from Smith to him, of $701,40; and Tarbox, at the same time, and as a part of the same transaction, gave back to Smith a bond, conditioned, that as the bill of sale was made as collateral security for the payment of the note,…
Read the full summary
Daniel D. Smith, of Boston, on the 22d of April, 1836, being sole owner of brig 31ary Mart, conveyed, by absolute bill of sale, one half the brig to Samuel Tarbox, of Westport, in Massachusetts, for the alleged consideration of $1,100, to secure a note from Smith to him, of $701,40; and Tarbox, at the same time, and as a part of the same transaction, gave back to Smith a bond, conditioned, that as the bill of sale was made as collateral security for the payment of the note, that if the note was paid at maturity, and he was indemnified for any charges and expenses he might be at on account of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Weston C. J.
In the Portland Bunk v. Stubbs, 6 Mass. R. 425, it was laid down, that a mortgage of a chattel is not valid, without possession by the mortgagee. And in Tucker v. Buffington et al., 15 Mass. R. 477, the Court say, “ it may well be doubted, whether a mortgagee, who might have taken possession, but never has, can be considered as owner to any purpose whatever.” Smith being, at the time when he made his bill of sale to Tarbox, sole owner of the brig, might have given him possession of the part secured to him. She remained at Portland, at no…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Davidson v. BaldwinCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1897
- State v. LamoineSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881