Wilbur v. Moulton
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the conversion of a quantity of tiirf. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, which, after stating the case, was as follows: “ The land from which the turf was taken was owned by one Fowler, subject to a mortgage to the plaintiff; the conditions of the mortgage had been broken; but no foreclosure proceedings bad been begun, and Fowler was still in possession The defendant, while doing some repairs…
Read the full summary
Tort for the conversion of a quantity of tiirf. Answer, a general denial. Trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, which, after stating the case, was as follows: “ The land from which the turf was taken was owned by one Fowler, subject to a mortgage to the plaintiff; the conditions of the mortgage had been broken; but no foreclosure proceedings bad been begun, and Fowler was still in possession The defendant, while doing some repairs on the house and door-yard of one Rice, in the city of Springfield, employed Fowler to turf the door-yard of said Rice.…
1Opinion of the Court
Morton J.
This bill of exceptions, as we understand it, does not show that there was any erroneous ruling in matter of law at the trial. The question whether the plaintiff as mortgagee could maintain this action for the value of the turf removed from the mortgaged land is governed by the principles stated in Searle v. Sawyer, ante, 491. Upon this point, the instructions given by the court were not excepted to, and are not stated. It must, therefore, be assumed that they were correct; and that the jury found that Fowler, in severing the turf, acted without any express or implied license from…
2Cited by3 opinions
- White v. GoveMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1903
- Delano v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1910
- James v. City of WorcesterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1886