Legal Opinion

Bartholomew v. Hamilton

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1870PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Replevin of a machine. ' The case was submitted to the judgment of the court on agreed facts, and is stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.

David W. Miner, one of the defendants, claims title to the personal property in question, under a written contract made between Rice, Barton & Company and the Ware River Paper Company, by which the former agreed to construct for the latter a machine for making and drying paper, which was not to become their property until paid for according to certain specified terms, but which they were in the mean time to have the right to remove and use in their mill. Under this arrangement, the machine was set up in the mill, connected with other machinery and apparatus, and used for making paper. It was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Hunt v. Bay State Iron Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Brooks v. PrescottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  2. In re Russell Falls Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1918
  3. Wight v. GraySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1882
  4. Martyn v. HamiltonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932
  5. Hawkins v. HerseySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1894

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API