Roland v. Gundy
Ohio Supreme Court
This cause came before the court, upon a writ of error to the common pleas of the county of Morgan,'and was adjourned here for decision by the Supreme Court in that county. The original suit was an action of replevin, brought by Gundy against Roland for a horse. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
This cause came before the court, upon a writ of error to the common pleas of the county of Morgan,'and was adjourned here for decision by the Supreme Court in that county. The original suit was an action of replevin, brought by Gundy against Roland for a horse. Yerdict and judgment for the plaintiff. Upon the trial, it appeared that Gundy had lent.the horse in question to one McConnel, who sold the horse to Isaac Roland, who sold him to the defendant, neither of whom had any notice of Gundy’s claim. The counsel for the defendant, on this testimony moved the court to instruct the jury that…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Hitchcock
delivered the opinion of the court:
The decision of this case depends upon the solution of the question, whether the bailee of personal' property can, by sale to an innocent purchaser, transfer an absolute right, so that the vendee can hold the same as against the bailor. When the cause was first submitted to the court, we were under the impression that there could be no doubt upon the subject. It is not, however, without its difficulties. The Nearly cases seem to have gone upon the principle that such sale changes the property. In a note to 2 Saunders, 47, it is said, in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Easton v. WorthingtonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
3Cited by2 opinions
- Long v. Noah's Lost Ark, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2004
- Kernohan v. DurhamOhio Supreme Court · 1891