Flagg v. Pierce
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Trover, for a pair of oxen. The defendant justified under the levy of an execution against one Fox, through whom the plaintiff claimed. Facts found by the court. Fox conveyed to the plaintiff a farm, by a recorded deed, and certain personal property, including the oxen, and took in return a bond conditioned for the support of himself and wife during life, and a mortgage on the farm to secure the bond. He was then living on the farm, and has continued to live there since.
Read the full summary
Trover, for a pair of oxen. The defendant justified under the levy of an execution against one Fox, through whom the plaintiff claimed. Facts found by the court. Fox conveyed to the plaintiff a farm, by a recorded deed, and certain personal property, including the oxen, and took in return a bond conditioned for the support of himself and wife during life, and a mortgage on the farm to secure the bond. He was then living on the farm, and has continued to live there since. The oxen remained on the farm until taken by the defendant on execution. There was no change in the management of the farm…
1Opinion of the CourtStanley, J.
The facts bring this case within the principle of Coburn v. Pickering, 3 N. H. 415. There was no substantial change of possession, nothing to apprise the public that Fox was not the owner of the oxen. He was in possession of and carrying on the farm, as he had done previously, and the plaintiff did no more or differently than he had done before.
It is argued that the conveyance and record were a substitute for a change of possession. But, as against the creditor represented by this defendant, that conveyance was fraudulent and void,— Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510, 521; Smith v. Smith, 11 N.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Lang v. StockwellSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875
- Cutting v. JacksonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875