Andrews v. Marshall
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On Exceptions to the ruling of Goodenow, J. This was an action of trespass to recover the value of a stock of goods, attached by Rufus M. Lord, a deputy of the defendant, as Sheriff of this county, by virtue of a writ against Jacob L. Chase, who had them in possession. The plaintiff claimed the goods under a mortgage bill of sale given him by Chase, duly recorded prior to the attachment.
Read the full summary
On Exceptions to the ruling of Goodenow, J. This was an action of trespass to recover the value of a stock of goods, attached by Rufus M. Lord, a deputy of the defendant, as Sheriff of this county, by virtue of a writ against Jacob L. Chase, who had them in possession. The plaintiff claimed the goods under a mortgage bill of sale given him by Chase, duly recorded prior to the attachment. The defendant contended that the mortgage was fraudulent and void as against Chase’s creditors. It appeared in evidence, that, after the return and entry in Court of the writs upon which the goods had been…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Tenney, C. J.
This case has previously been before the law Court, on exceptions taken to the instructions, given to the jury, under evidence substantially the same, as that which was presented at the last trial, Andrews v. Marshall, 43 Maine, 272. At the former hearing, the presiding Judge instructed the jury, that although the officer might by his irregularities in the sale have become a trespasser- ab initio, as regards Chase, yet the plaintiff in this action, can derive no advantage from such irregularities. If they found that the *29mortgage was made to…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State v. PlaczekSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1977
- Doolittle v. LymanSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1860
- United States v. PooleDistrict Court, D. Maine · 1880