Harris v. Coe
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Action of replevin, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Litchfield County and tried to the court, Welch, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. The trial court found the following facts: The plaintiff and defendant Taylor, are merchants in Torrington, Conn., and the defendant Coe is a deputy sheriff.
Read the full summary
Action of replevin, brought to the Court of Common Pleas in Litchfield County and tried to the court, Welch, J.; facts found and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, and appeal by the defendants for alleged errors in the rulings of the court. The trial court found the following facts: The plaintiff and defendant Taylor, are merchants in Torrington, Conn., and the defendant Coe is a deputy sheriff. The property replevied in this action was attached by the defendant Coe, upon a lawful writ of attachment issued in favor of Taylor, and against one Mamory, a merchant having a store in Winsted, to…
1Opinion of the Court
TTat.t,, J.
Counsel for the defendants asked the trial court to incorporate in its finding the facts that the agreement between the plaintiff and Mamory was not in writing, and that by the terms of the parol agreement no limitation was placed upon the price at which Mamory was to sell the goods received by him from the plaintiff.
These facts should have been added to the finding. They are pertinent to the questions of law raised by the appeal, namely, whether by a proper construction of the contract between the plaintiff and Mamory there was either an absolute *162sale of the goods to Mamory, or…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Jordan, Marsh & Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1896
- In re Wilcox & Howe Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- Lewis v. McCabeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1881
- Powell v. R. G. Wallace & Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- In re Columbus Buggy Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- First National Bank v. McIntosh & Peters Live-stock & Commission Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1906
- Wilson-Moline Buggy Co. v. PriebeMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Cass v. RochesterCalifornia Supreme Court · 1917
- Riedinger v. Mack Machine Co., C., Inc.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.