Stone v. Addy
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort, by the assignee in insolvency of George W. Kendrick, .for the conversion of certain hay which had been cut in the summer of 1891 by Kendrick from the farm of the defendant and a neighboring farm of one Fairbanks in the town of Harvard, and placed in the defendant’s barn on his farm, Kendrick being at the time a tenant at will of the defendant.
Read the full summary
Tort, by the assignee in insolvency of George W. Kendrick, .for the conversion of certain hay which had been cut in the summer of 1891 by Kendrick from the farm of the defendant and a neighboring farm of one Fairbanks in the town of Harvard, and placed in the defendant’s barn on his farm, Kendrick being at the time a tenant at will of the defendant. At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Hammond, J., it appeared that after Kendrick had removed from the defendant’s farm in October, 1891, he went into insolvency, and in the same month the plaintiff was duly appointed his…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The former verdict and judgment might have gone on the ground that the defendant had committed no act of conversion at the time when the action was brought, and therefore they did not preclude the plaintiff from maintaining his present action. Lea v. Lea, 99 Mass. 493. Stapleton v. Dee, 132 Mass. 279. Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105. Bugbee v. Davis, 167 Mass. 33.
The exceptions being obviously untenable under the previous decisions, we pass by the question whether the defendant lost his right of exception by omitting to give due notice of the filing of the exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Foye v. PatchMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Lea v. LeaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Stapleton v. DeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882
- Bugbee v. DavisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1896
3Cited by1 opinion
- Whittemore v. Selectmen of FalmouthMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939