Cotel v. Hilliard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
In this action, which was trover for certain chattels mentioned indie plaintiff’s declaration, the parties agreed upon a state of facts, from which it appears that on the 12th of March, 1806, the plaintifl signed a shipping paper in the common form, to serve as a mariner on board the brig Fox, whereof the defendant was master, on a voyage from Salem to Machias, and from thence to Turk’s Island, and back to the United States ; and on the «ame shipping paper subscribed a…
Read the full summary
In this action, which was trover for certain chattels mentioned indie plaintiff’s declaration, the parties agreed upon a state of facts, from which it appears that on the 12th of March, 1806, the plaintifl signed a shipping paper in the common form, to serve as a mariner on board the brig Fox, whereof the defendant was master, on a voyage from Salem to Machias, and from thence to Turk’s Island, and back to the United States ; and on the «ame shipping paper subscribed a memorandum, engaging to render himself on board said brig on the same day to go the voyage aforesaid, and afterwards, on the…
1Opinion of the Court
The action stood continued for advisement; and at this term the opinion of the Court was delivered as follows by
Sedgwick, J.
It being agreed that the goods, for the conversion of which this action is brought, did once belong to the plaintiff, and that, upon a demand by him, the defendant refused to deliver them, there is no doubt of the conversion; and the only question is, whether the defendant is authorized by law to detain the goods as forfeited, for the cause alleged by him. The solution of this question depends on the construction of the act of Congress of the 20th of July, 1790.
By the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Cloutman v. TunisonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1833
- Bellows v. GoodallSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1855
- Behncke v. KingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1823