Wingate v. Smith
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On the trial of this action of replevin, before Emery J., the counsel for the defendant requested the Judge to instruct the jury on certain points of law. The requests made, pertinent to the grounds of decision, are stated in the opinion of this Court; as are also the facts, appearing in the report of the case.
Read the full summary
On the trial of this action of replevin, before Emery J., the counsel for the defendant requested the Judge to instruct the jury on certain points of law. The requests made, pertinent to the grounds of decision, are stated in the opinion of this Court; as are also the facts, appearing in the report of the case. On the subject of confusion of goods, the Judge instructed the jury, that merely taking the mill logs and fraudulently mixing them with the defendant’s logs, would not constitute confusion of goods. But that if from the evidence, they believed that the defendant had fraudulently taken…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was by
Shepley J.
The suit is replevin for several rafts of boards designated by certain marks. One raft only was replevied. The defendant pleaded the general issue, and by a brief statement alleged the property to be in himself and two other persons named. ‘ It appears from the report of the case, that the plaintiffs were the owners of logs distinguished by certain marks; and that the defendants caused another additional mark to be placed upon them by which they would become marked like his own and partner’s logs. The boards composing this raft were sawed from logs…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Claflin & Co. v. Continental Jersey WorksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1890
- Meeks v. Clear Jack Mining Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
- Foote v. MerrillSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1874
- Jackson v. WaltonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Jewett v. DringerSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.