Rodick v. Coburn
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Trover for a watch. John W. MeDuffee, once the undisputed owner of the watch, delivered it, with five others, to the plaintiffs, in pursuance of a sale or as security. They afterwards replaced it in McDuffee’s hands, and took from him the following writing: “Lewiston, December 23, 1874. Received of J. A. Rodick & Co. one Nord-man, freres, stem winder, No. 21,549. Money or watch to be returned Saturday next. Yalue, $200. J. W. MeDuffee.”
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Trover for a watch. John W. MeDuffee, once the undisputed owner of the watch, delivered it, with five others, to the plaintiffs, in pursuance of a sale or as security. They afterwards replaced it in McDuffee’s hands, and took from him the following writing: “Lewiston, December 23, 1874. Received of J. A. Rodick & Co. one Nord-man, freres, stem winder, No. 21,549. Money or watch to be returned Saturday next. Yalue, $200. J. W. MeDuffee.” The watch was not returned to the plaintiffs, nor was the money paid; there was evidence having a tendency to show that the plaintiffs agreed…
1Opinion of the CourtWalton, J.
If the owner of an article of personal property delivers it to another to sell, the latter has no right to deliver it to his creditor in payment of his own pre-existing debt; and if he does so, the owner may maintain trover against the creditor without a previous demand.
To the point that such a disposition of the property is unauthor*172ized. Parsons v. Webb, 8 Maine, 38. Holton v. Smith, 7 N. H. 446.
To the point that no previous demand is necessary. Galvin v. Bacon, 11 Maine, 28. Whipple v. Gilpatrick, 19 Maine, 427. Badlam v. Tucker, 1 Pick. 389, 397. Woodbury v. Long, 8 Pick. 543. Hunt v.…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Hurley v. WatsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Velsian v. LewisOregon Supreme Court · 1888
- Gould v. BlodgettSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1881