Stafford v. Whitcomb
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the conversion of a horse. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared that Solomon Todd, the former owner of the horse, had mortgaged him to one of the defendants, and afterwards sold him to the plaintiff. There was no evidence of a written consent by the mortgagee to the sale, and the evidence was conflicting whether oral consent had been given, and whether the plaintiff at the time of his purchase was informed of the mortgage.
Read the full summary
Tort for the conversion of a horse. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared that Solomon Todd, the former owner of the horse, had mortgaged him to one of the defendants, and afterwards sold him to the plaintiff. There was no evidence of a written consent by the mortgagee to the sale, and the evidence was conflicting whether oral consent had been given, and whether the plaintiff at the time of his purchase was informed of the mortgage. The judge instructed the jury that the mortgagee could not set up a title to the horse under his mortgage, provided he had given…
1Opinion of the CourtDewey, J.
The question in the present case is, whether, if the jury were satisfied that the mortgagee had given to the mortgagor verbal permission to sell the horse, the mortgagee would, by reason of such permission, be barred of his right to set up his mortgage against the title of the purchaser.
It is urged, on the part of the defendants, that the plaintiff is estopped from showing such verbal authority to sell the mortgaged property, a sale made under such verbal authority being an illegal act, and made punishable as such by Gen. Sts. c. 161, § 62. The error of the defendants is in overlooking the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ziegler v. IlfeldSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911