Potter v. Payne
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis; tried at Nonvich, March term, 1851. On the trial, it was proved, that the goods in question had belonged to Redfield & Potter; and the plaintiff claimed, that Redfield & Potter, by a bill of sale, dated October 14th, 1848, for a valuable and bona fide consideration, sold and assigned them to Charles & Redfield; and that Charles Redfield, being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 4,739 dollars, by two promissory notes,…
Read the full summary
This was an action of trespass de bonis asportatis; tried at Nonvich, March term, 1851. On the trial, it was proved, that the goods in question had belonged to Redfield & Potter; and the plaintiff claimed, that Redfield & Potter, by a bill of sale, dated October 14th, 1848, for a valuable and bona fide consideration, sold and assigned them to Charles & Redfield; and that Charles Redfield, being indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 4,739 dollars, by two promissory notes, one for 4,514 dollars, and the other for 225 dollars, payable to Redfield & Potter, or order, three months from the date,…
1Opinion of the CourtHinman, J.
The plaintiff’s title to the goods in question, was a mortgage bill of sale, to secure the payment of certain notes. Immediately after he took his mortgage, he exposed the goods for sale, and was in the act of selling them, from time to time, as he was able to find purchasers, when the defendant attached them. The defendant claimed, and requested the court to charge the jury, that the plaintiff had no right to sell the goods, until after his notes fell due. If there was no other infirmity in the plaintiff’s title than this, we think he would be entitled to retain his verdict. The defendant…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Jackson v. KincaidSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1896
- Mead v. NoyesSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1877
- Bank of Boston Connecticut v. BrewsterConnecticut Superior Court · 1992