Hallett v. Fowler
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of a piano. At the trial in the superior court, before Putnam, J., it appeared that since the commencement of the action the defendant had gone into insolvency, and an assignee had been appointed, who did not appear and take upon himself the defence. The plaintiffs objected that the defendant had no right to appear and contest the action; but the judge ruled otherwise.
Read the full summary
Replevin of a piano. At the trial in the superior court, before Putnam, J., it appeared that since the commencement of the action the defendant had gone into insolvency, and an assignee had been appointed, who did not appear and take upon himself the defence. The plaintiffs objected that the defendant had no right to appear and contest the action; but the judge ruled otherwise. The plaintiffs offered no evidence upon the merits of the case, and a verdict was accordingly returned for the defendant, and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.
1Opinion of the CourtMetcalf, J.
The ground taken by the plaintiffs is, tnat although they show no title to the property which they took from the defendant on their replevin writ, yet that he cannot defend this action, because all his property has been assigned under the insolvent laws, since the action was commenced. They insist, in the brief of their counsel, that “ the defendant lost all control of the defence of this case by his insolvency, and by force of the assignment.” The effect of this position is, that a party whose property is assigned under the insolvent laws, after an action of replevin is brought against him,…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bennett v. BartlettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850