Glaspy v. Cabot
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Two ACTIONS OP TOBT. The first action was for the conversion of “the hull of the schooner Mary A., the property of the plaintiff.” The second action was for the conversion of “one schooner, called the Mary A., together with the sails, rigging, anchors, chains, small boat, and other appurtenances belonging to said vessel,” alleged to be the property of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Two ACTIONS OP TOBT. The first action was for the conversion of “the hull of the schooner Mary A., the property of the plaintiff.” The second action was for the conversion of “one schooner, called the Mary A., together with the sails, rigging, anchors, chains, small boat, and other appurtenances belonging to said vessel,” alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The answer in each case denied that the property mentioned in the declaration was the plaintiff’s property, and denied any conversion. Trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Pitman, J., who allowed a bill of…
1Opinion of the CourtField, J.
Cabot converted to his use the hull when he purchased it in Boston, and took possession of and used it as his own. The changes in the hull, whereby its value had been increased, which had been made by Murphy after he purchased the schooner then lying on Coffin’s Beach, were not made at the request of the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff had retaken or replevied the schooner from Murphy in Boston, he would have received her in the condition she was then in.
The market value of the property at the time and place of conversion, with interest from that time, is admitted to be the general rule for…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Day v. BassettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Commonwealth v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1860
- Currier v. KnappMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
- Chase v. IngallsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877
- Newhall v. KingsburyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- United States v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- G. E. Lothrop Theatres Co. v. Edison Electric Illuminating Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1935
- Central Coal & Coke Co. v. John Henry Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1901
- United Shoe Machinery Co. v. HoltMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1904
- Trustees of Dartmouth College v. International Paper Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Hampshire · 1904
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.