Burditt v. Hunt
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Trover for certain goods. The plaintiffs, to show title in themselves offered a mortgage from Robert Kellen to them, without date, recorded Feb’y 1, 1842, of “all and singular the goods wares and merchandize, stock, harness work and other articles of every kind and description now in the shop occupied by me in said Bangor.”
Read the full summary
Trover for certain goods. The plaintiffs, to show title in themselves offered a mortgage from Robert Kellen to them, without date, recorded Feb’y 1, 1842, of “all and singular the goods wares and merchandize, stock, harness work and other articles of every kind and description now in the shop occupied by me in said Bangor.” The plaintiffs then introduced the subscribing witness to the mortgage, and proposed to prove by him, that the mortgage was executed and delivered on Feb. 1, 1842. To this the defendants objected, but the testimony was admitted by Tenney J. presiding at the trial. It…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Shepley J.
This is an action of trover for goods claimed under a conditional bill of sale made to the plaintiffs by Robert Kellen. It was without date, and was duly recorded on February 1, 1842. A part of the property conveyed is described as all the goods “ now in the shop occupied by me in Bangor.”
In defence, it is contended that parol testimony ought not to have been received to prove the date of its execution, because the statute, c. 125, § 32, requires, that there should be written evidence of such a sale; and that without such testimony the…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Nanson v. JacobSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
- Bader v. Mills & Baker Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1921
- Steele v. MarsicanoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1894
- Brown v. James H. Campbell Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1890
- Culp v. Signal Van & StorageCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.