Giroux v. Wheeler
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of a horse. At the trial in the Superior Court, Without a jury, before Sheldon, J., there was conflicting evidence on the issues involved.
Read the full summary
Replevin of a horse. At the trial in the Superior Court, Without a jury, before Sheldon, J., there was conflicting evidence on the issues involved. It appeared that after the replevin of the horse by the plaintiff from the defendant, and while it was yet in the custody of the constable who served the replevin writ, the defendant said to the plaintiff, “ I like that horse; what will you take for him ? ” The plaintiff asked the constable, “ Can I sell the horse?” The constable answered, “Yes, it is your horse; of course you can sell him.” “ Well,” said the plaintiff, “I would just as soon sell…
1Opinion of the CourtBarker, J.
The question for decision is whether, after the finding for the defendant in replevin, the Superior Court had power to order a return of the chattel. Upon the pleadings, the finding settled it as a fact in the case, that, when the horse was taken from the defendant by means of the replevin writ, he was the owner of the horse, and also that the plaintiff had then no right to its possession. If we assume in favor of the plaintiff that an order for a return will not be granted to a defendant in replevin who is at the time in the possession of the chattel, (Ware River Railroad v. Vibbard, 114…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Leonard v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
- Ware River Railroad v. VibbardMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. FlowersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Beach v. BakerOhio Court of Appeals · 1958