Seavey v. Potter
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Replevin of a quantity of silk attached by the defendant, as a deputy of the sheriff of Essex, on a writ against L. R. Powers. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gtardner, J., the plaintiffs put in evidence tending to show that the silk was sold by them to Powers in March, 1875, and that they were induced to sell the same by his false and fraudulent representations.
Read the full summary
Replevin of a quantity of silk attached by the defendant, as a deputy of the sheriff of Essex, on a writ against L. R. Powers. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gtardner, J., the plaintiffs put in evidence tending to show that the silk was sold by them to Powers in March, 1875, and that they were induced to sell the same by his false and fraudulent representations. It also appeared from the testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses that the silk was paid for by notes of Powers, and that, after the date of the writ of replevin, the plaintiffs joined with other creditors in a petition for…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The claim of the plaintiff to rescind the sale is wholly inconsistent with his proof in bankruptcy of a promissory note taken for the price of the goods. Ormsby v. Dearborn, 116 Mass. 386. See also Bassett v. Brown, 105 Mass. 551. Exceptions overruled.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bassett v. BrownMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1870
- Ormsby v. DearbornMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
3Cited by8 opinions
- Miller v. HydeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1894
- Stevens v. PierceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1890
- Whitney v. AbbottMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1906
- Droege v. Ahrens & Ott Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Standard Varnish Works v. HaydockCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.