Davis v. Stone
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tout for conversion of the plaintiff’s goods. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the defendant admitted that the articles named in the plaintiff’s writ were the property of the plaintiff, and that he took them from her house; but alleged in defence that he took them, with other furniture, as the property of one Jenkins, by virtue of a writ in favor of Teller against the said Jenkins.
Read the full summary
Tout for conversion of the plaintiff’s goods. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Putnam, J., the defendant admitted that the articles named in the plaintiff’s writ were the property of the plaintiff, and that he took them from her house; but alleged in defence that he took them, with other furniture, as the property of one Jenkins, by virtue of a writ in favor of Teller against the said Jenkins. He testified that he went to the house, with a keeper, for the purpose of making the attachment; that the plaintiff at first refused him admittance "but that he finally gained it, as he…
1Opinion of the CourtAmes, J.
As the defendant has wholly failed to show that any of the goods which he attached belonged to the debtor named in the writ of attachment, he fails to show any legal justification for the act. According to the terms of the reservation, therefore, the Case must stand for trial.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Davis v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Lyman v. HolmesSupreme Court of Vermont · 1915
- Cutrona v. SicardMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1936