Clark v. Dean
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, in two counts. The first count alleged that the defendant had converted to his own use the goods mentioned in a schedule annexed, the property of the plaintiffs.
Read the full summary
Tort, in two counts. The first count alleged that the defendant had converted to his own use the goods mentioned in a schedule annexed, the property of the plaintiffs. The second count was as follows : “ And the plaintiffs say that, prior to the issuing of their writ, they consigned for sale the merchandise described in the schedule annexed to their writ to one Edward E. Washburn of Taunton ; that on or about February 1, 1884, the defendant took possession of the same and converted the same to his own use; that on or about February 9, 1884, the said Washburn directed said defendant to deliver…
1Opinion of the CourtMorton, C. J.
We need not discuss the question whether there is any material difference between the two counts of the plaintiffs’ declaration, because we are of opinion that, under either count, the plaintiffs are, upon the undisputed evidence in the case, entitled to recover.
It is true, as contended by the. defendant, that, in order to maintain trover, the plaintiffs must show, not only title in the *295property converted, but also tbe right of immediate possession. Ring v. Neale, 114 Mass. 111. Hardy v. Munroe, 127 Mass. 64. But the auditor found that the goods which the defendant attached as the property of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Ring v. NealeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Hardy v. MunroeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1879
3Cited by1 opinion
- Flint v. Hutchinson Smoke Burner Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1892