Spring v. Coffin
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of twenty-four hogsheads of rum. Issue being joined on the property of the plaintiffs, the same ws tried at the last November term in this county, before Parker, J., and a verdict found for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following facts reported by the judge, who sat at the trial.
Read the full summary
Replevin of twenty-four hogsheads of rum. Issue being joined on the property of the plaintiffs, the same ws tried at the last November term in this county, before Parker, J., and a verdict found for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the following facts reported by the judge, who sat at the trial. In February, 1810, the plaintiffs were the owners of the rum replevied, it being in the store of Ammi Cutter; when one Phineas Cole agreed to purchase it of Spring, and to pay for it by his note payable in-days, endorsed by William F. Salter, who was a commission merchant in…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia.
When the contract between Spring and Cole was rescinded, its whole effect ceased; it was annihilated. The property remained the plaintiffs’ absolutely, and was discharged from any supposed lien on the part of Salter. As he knew all the [ * 34 ] facts, the sale by him to the * defendant was fraudulent, and nothing passed by it. If the defendant has paid the note, which was the consideration for the sale, he has his remedy against Salter for the money, as paid for a consideration which has failed. The plaintiffs may enter judgment on the verdict.
ADDITIONAL NOTE.
[As to the possession and…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Saltus & Saltus v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- McFarland v. WheelerNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Wheeler v. M'FarlandNew York Supreme Court · 1833
- Lloyd v. HollySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kloes v. Wurmser & LouisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1889
- Beckner v. WillsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
- Earle v. De WittMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1863