Aldrich v. Hodges

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Aldrich v. Hodges

42 N.E. 107, 164 Mass. 570, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 293

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 27, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 42 N.E. 107 (Aldrich v. Hodges) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aldrich v. Hodges, 42 N.E. 107, 164 Mass. 570, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 293 (Mass. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

Barker, J.

We assume that the title to the goods remained in Boehm and Company until the purchase price should be paid, and that the plaintiffs, to whom as partners Boehm and Company consigned the goods, had the rightful possession of them, with the right to sell them and to pay for them as they were sold. The defendant having seized the goods upon an execution against one of the plaintiffs, contends that this action cannot be maintained, because before its commencement Boehm and Company had brought their action against him for the conversion of the goods, returnable to the same court, and that their action is still pending. But the pendency of that action has no effect upon the title of the goods ; Miller v. Hyde, 161 Mass. 472, 482; and therefore constitutes no defence to the present action, whether pleaded in abatement or proved as a defence upon the merits under the general issue. No question of pleading, or as to the measure of the plaintiffs’ damages, is raised by the exception, which is merely to the refusal to rule that the present action could not be maintained. The plaintiffs had a special property in the goods, and lawful possession, and could maintain trover. Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 408. Shaw v. Kaler, 106 Mass. 448.

Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barker, J.

We assume that the title to the goods remained in Boehm and Company until the purchase price should be paid, and that the plaintiffs, to whom as partners Boehm and Company consigned the goods, had the rightful possession of them, with the right to sell them and to pay for them as they were sold. The defendant having seized the goods upon an execution against one of the plaintiffs, contends that this action cannot be maintained, because before its commencement Boehm and Company had brought their action against him for the conversion of the goods, returnable to the same court, and that their action is still pending. But the pendency of that action has no effect upon the title of the goods ; Miller v. Hyde, 161 Mass. 472, 482; and therefore constitutes no defence to the present action, whether pleaded in abatement or proved as a defence upon the merits under the general issue. No question of pleading, or as to the measure of the plaintiffs’ damages, is raised by the exception, which is merely to the refusal to rule that the present action could not be maintained. The plaintiffs had a special property in the goods, and lawful possession, and could maintain trover. Burke v. Savage, 13 Allen, 408. Shaw v. Kaler, 106 Mass. 448.

Exceptions overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 N.E. 107, 164 Mass. 570, 1895 Mass. LEXIS 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aldrich-v-hodges-mass-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack