Kimball v. Hildreth
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for the conversion of a watch and chain. The answer denied the conversion, and the title of the plaintiff to the property; set forth the special contract of the plaintiff hereafter copied; and averred that the plaintiff borrowed the watch and chain from James M. Hildreth, Jr. for a temporary purpose, and wore them for several weeks, and then lent them to the defendant for a like purpose, and that James M. Hildreth, Jr. thereupon demanded them of the defendant, and that…
Read the full summary
Tort for the conversion of a watch and chain. The answer denied the conversion, and the title of the plaintiff to the property; set forth the special contract of the plaintiff hereafter copied; and averred that the plaintiff borrowed the watch and chain from James M. Hildreth, Jr. for a temporary purpose, and wore them for several weeks, and then lent them to the defendant for a like purpose, and that James M. Hildreth, Jr. thereupon demanded them of the defendant, and that the defendant accordingly delivered them to him. At the trial in the superior court, before Rockwell, J., it appeared…
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
The contract of January 2d 1863, between the plaintiff and J. M. Hildreth, Jr., was a pledge of the watch and chain to Hildreth, with a power in him to sell them for a stipulated sum.
To render a pledge valid as a security, there must be not only a delivery to the pledgee of the property pledged, but also a continued possession thereof by him. If he relinquish possession, the pledge no longer exists, but is extinguished or waived. Story on Bailm. § 287. Eastman v. Avery, 23 Maine, 250. Russell v. Fillmore, 15 Verm. 135. Walcott v. Keith, 2 Fost. (N. H.) 209. Walker v. Staples, 5 Allen, 34, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Russell v. FillmoreSupreme Court of Vermont · 1843
3Cited by2 opinions
- Valdosta Plywoods Inc. v. BeloteCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1947
- Duxbury v. RobertsMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1982