John V. Farwell Co. v. Hilton
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin
This was an action of replevin by the John V. Harwell Company against George Hilton, assignee, and others, to recover goods purchased by defendant’s assignor under fraudulent representations. Heard on motion by plaintiff for judgment non obstante veredicto or for new trial.
1Opinion of the Court
SEAMAN, District Judge.
The action is replevin for goods purchased by The assignor under fraudulent representations which induced the sale, and the verdict is special, rendered by direction of the court, finding in favor of the defendants for the value of all goods purchased on and prior to March 23, 1897, and in favor of the plaintiff for all the goods which were purchased after that date. The direction of a verdict in favor of the defendants for the value of the goods covered by the earlier purchases was'founded wholly upon the view that replevin could not be maintained because payments had…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Stuart v. HaydenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1895
- Thompson v. PeckIndiana Supreme Court · 1888
- Schofield v. ShifferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Sloane v. ShifferSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Sisson, Potter & Co. v. HillSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1891
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hegarty v. American Commonwealths Power Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
- Kingman-Moore Implement Co. v. EllisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1907
- Premier Poultry Co. v. Wm. Bornstein & Son, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
- Hegarty v. American Com. Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1932
- Pierce County Auto Co. v. MenardWashington Supreme Court · 1916