Bourne v. Buffington
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin. The answer denied the plaintiff’s title, and alleged that the goods were the property of William Hayes, and were attached by the defendant, a constable of Fall River, while in the possession of Hayes, by a creditor of his, and that any transfer from Hayes to the plaintiff was fraudulent and designed to impede the insolvent laws of Massachusetts and the bankrupt laws of the United States.
Read the full summary
Replevin. The answer denied the plaintiff’s title, and alleged that the goods were the property of William Hayes, and were attached by the defendant, a constable of Fall River, while in the possession of Hayes, by a creditor of his, and that any transfer from Hayes to the plaintiff was fraudulent and designed to impede the insolvent laws of Massachusetts and the bankrupt laws of the United States. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gardner, J., the plaintiff put in evidence a bill of sale from Hayes to himself of the property in question, under which he testified that he took…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Assuming the bills of sale made three years before to be material to the issue on trial, no error is shown in the exclusion of secondary evidence of them. Whether sufficient notice to produce the originals had been given, was a question of fact for the decision of the presiding judge. The answer of the plaintiff’s counsel to the request made at the beginning of the trial, “ that the plaintiff did not have them in his posses* *483sion,” might well be understood to mean that he did not then have them with him.
The defendant not claiming under proceedings in bankruptcy or insolvency, no…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. FreitasMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1942
- R. J. Caldwell Co. v. Cushnoc Paper Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1916