Putnam v. Rowe
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the conversion of merchandise. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court substantially as follows: Charles F. Putnam and Albert Knights, partners under the style of C. F. Putnam & Company, being the owners of the merchandise in question, conveyed it to the plaintiff by bills of sale, in consideration of the plaintiff’s guaranteeing to the firm of A. French & Company the payment of such sum, not exceeding…
Read the full summary
Tort for the conversion of merchandise. Trial in the Superior Court, before Dewey, J., who reported the case for the determination of this court substantially as follows: Charles F. Putnam and Albert Knights, partners under the style of C. F. Putnam & Company, being the owners of the merchandise in question, conveyed it to the plaintiff by bills of sale, in consideration of the plaintiff’s guaranteeing to the firm of A. French & Company the payment of such sum, not exceeding $1000, as might be due from C. F. Putnam & Company to that firm. The bills of sale were absolute on their face, but…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
As the report states that the plaintiff held tile goods as collateral security, he held them either as pledgee or *29mortgagee. They were attached under the Gen. Sts. c. 123, § 62, and it was necessary for the plaintiff to make a demand ir conformity with § 63,* in order to dissolve the attachment. It was rightly ruled that his demand was not in conformity with the Btatute. Judgment on the verdict.
“ Section 62. Personal property of a debtor that is subject to a mortgage, pledge, or lien, and of which the debtor has the right of redemption, may be attached and held in like manner as…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Bicknell v. CleverlyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878
- Morse v. Glendon Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1878