Whitman v. Merrill
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of a lot of woollen cloths. The defendant was defaulted, and the parties subsequently agreed that the default should stand and the defendant take part in the assessment of damages.
Read the full summary
Replevin of a lot of woollen cloths. The defendant was defaulted, and the parties subsequently agreed that the default should stand and the defendant take part in the assessment of damages. At the hearing, before Colburn, J., the following facts appeared: The plaintiffs were commission merchants in the city of Hew York, and Harvey B. Wilmot was a manufacturer and dealer in ready-made clothing at store Ho. 263 Washington Street, Boston, his establishment consisting of a large room on the street level, one or two chambers over it, and a large room, up two or three stories in a building, in the…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
A fallacy of the plaintiffs is the assumption that a judgment for the plaintiff in replevin necessarily implies an unlawful taking of the replevied goods by the defendant. This is not so. Replevin lies for an unlawful detention, although the original taking was lawful.
In this case, there is nothing to show the taking by the defendant to have been unlawful. The plaintiffs sold and delivered to Wilmot a bill of goods, being those replevied. A stranger could treat the goods thus delivered to Wilmot, while in his hands, as Wilmot’s; could purchase them, could perform labor upon them, and a…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Carignan v. United StatesDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1969
- Jarvis v. DePezaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1925
- Allen v. ButmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1885
- Mott v. KuleszaMassachusetts District Court, Appellate Division · 1984