Jones v. Sinclair
Superior Court of New Hampshire
In trover there must be evidence of actual possession by the plaintiff, or the right to actual possession at the time of the conversion. Where evidence is offered of a conversion at different times, if the plaintiff had a right to the possession at either of those times, it is sufficient.
Read the full summary
In trover there must be evidence of actual possession by the plaintiff, or the right to actual possession at the time of the conversion. Where evidence is offered of a conversion at different times, if the plaintiff had a right to the possession at either of those times, it is sufficient. When goods, by tort of a third person, are taken from a commission merchant, the owner, after a demand on the third person, has a right, to the actual possession of them ; and a lien on them for the commission merchant’s expences cannot be set up in bar except by himself or by others under his express…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodbury, J.
The facts of this case strongly resemble those in Whiting vs. Bradley, Rock. Feb. 1819. But some additional objections are here started, which deserve examination.
The first one is, that the evidence of property in the plaintiff was defective. But it having appeared that Jones was in the actual possession of the saddles before he delivered them to Hall, and was exercising acts of ownership over them, this was sufficient prima facie evidence of title. 2 Saund. 47.—11 John. 132, 529.—13 ditto 141, 276, 284, 361.—5 Mass. Rep. 304.—15 ditto 136. This was not rebutted by other evidence of title in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Chandler v. EdsonNew York Supreme Court · 1812
- Cook v. HowardNew York Supreme Court · 1816
3Cited by3 opinions
- In re PragerDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1958
- Bassett v. Salisbury Manufacturing Co.Superior Court of New Hampshire · 1854
- Bartlett v. HoytSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1854