Ware River Railroad v. Vibbard
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of 4190 rails of railroad iron. The defendants were the members of the partnership of Vibbard, Foote & Co., and of the partnership of Jay Cooke & Co., all of the State of New York, and George L. Brastow and Gardner Prouty.
Read the full summary
Replevin of 4190 rails of railroad iron. The defendants were the members of the partnership of Vibbard, Foote & Co., and of the partnership of Jay Cooke & Co., all of the State of New York, and George L. Brastow and Gardner Prouty. Writ dated January 29, 1873. The officer returned upon the writ that he had taken possession of “ the "within named railroad iron,” and appointed appraisers, who appraised it at the sum of §64,400 ; that he took from the plaintiff a bond to the defendants (which was in the usual form), and that he had replevied the property and delivered it to the plaintiff.…
1Opinion of the CourtWells, J.
Judgment for a return with damages for the taking is ordered in an action of replevin, only “ if it appears upon the nonsuit of the plaintiff, or upon a trial or otherwise, that the defendant is entitled to a return of the goods.” Gen. Sts. c. 143, § 13. The question whether the defendants are entitled to have such a judgment, is to be determined by the state of the facts relating to the possession and right of possession at the time of the hearing upon the motion therefor. Simpson v. M’Farland, 18 Pick. 427. Whitwell v. Wells, 24 Pick. 25. Martin v. Bayley, 1 Allen, 381. Davis v. Harding, 3…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Leonard v. WhitneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1872
3Cited by4 opinions
- Commercial Credit Corp. v. FlowersMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
- Standard Varnish Works v. CushingMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Giroux v. WheelerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- American Steel & Iron Co. v. WoosterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1948