King v. Bates
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
From Cheshire Circuit Court. Replevin, for three horses. The plaintiff claimed title by a purchase of the property from one Welcome O. Bates, made about June 10, 1878. The defendants pleaded and claimed title in the defendant, Simpson E. Bates, as a conditional vendor to the said Welcome O. Bates, prior to the plaintiff’s purchase, and introduced as evidence of such conditional sale the following paper: “ $1,250. Barre, March 3, 1873. Received of Simpson E. Bates, four…
Read the full summary
From Cheshire Circuit Court. Replevin, for three horses. The plaintiff claimed title by a purchase of the property from one Welcome O. Bates, made about June 10, 1878. The defendants pleaded and claimed title in the defendant, Simpson E. Bates, as a conditional vendor to the said Welcome O. Bates, prior to the plaintiff’s purchase, and introduced as evidence of such conditional sale the following paper: “ $1,250. Barre, March 3, 1873. Received of Simpson E. Bates, four horses and four harnesses, and one team wagon, for which I promise to pay him, or his order, the sum of twelve hundred and…
1Concurrence
1. The evidence rejected did not tend to rebut the evidence introduced by the plaintiff in reply to the defendants' evidence, and was therefore properly rejected.
2. The verdict of the jury probably settles that the defendant S.E. Bates had received payment for the horses before the conditional vendee, W. C. Bates, sold them to King. When the terms of the sale had been complied with, W. C. Bates became the absolute owner of the horses, and of course could make a valid sale of them to the plaintiff. In this view of the case, the instructions requested and those given were wholly immaterial, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sargent v. GileSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1836
- Sanborn v. ColmanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1832