Bennett v. Bailey

22 N.E. 916, 150 Mass. 257, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 68
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedNovember 29, 1889
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 22 N.E. 916 (Bennett v. Bailey) 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
Bennett v. Bailey, 22 N.E. 916, 150 Mass. 257, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 68 (Mass. 1889).

Opinion

•Knowlton, J.

It was settled in Blanchard v. Cooke, 144 Mass. 207, after a careful review and a full consideration of the authorities, that possession of after-acquired personal property, rightfully taken and maintained by a mortgagee, under a mortgage purporting to cover it, gives him a title good not only against the mortgagor, but even against an assignee in insolvency or an attaching creditor. That principle is applicable to the present case. The mortgage under which the defendant took possession covered property afterwards acquired in the plaintiff’s business, and all the goods for which the plaintiff was permitted to recover under his third count were so acquired, and were lawfully taken into possession by the defendant under the mortgage, and were sold in proceedings to foreclose the mortgage. There was no evidence upon which recovery could be had under the third count, and the rulings as to this part of the case were erroneous.

We discover no error in the refusals and instructions upon the other questions raised. Acceptance by the plaintiff of the proceeds of the sale under the mortgage was an affirmance of the sale, but it was not necessarily a waiver of a claim founded on fraud in conducting the sale. Montgomery v. Pickering, 116 Mass. 227. If there was such fraud, and no waiver, the plaintiff might well maintain his action on the first count in the amendment to his declaration. Fenton v. Torrey, 133 Mass. 138.

The evidence as to the disposition of the property by the defendant, after he took possession of it on August 24, was competent, so far as it bore upon the question whether he acted fairly and in good faith in conducting the foreclosure.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Related

Salter v. Leventhal
151 N.E.2d 275 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1958)
Nelson Anderson, Inc. v. McManus
135 N.E.2d 302 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1956)
Cambridge Savings Bank v. Cronin
194 N.E. 289 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Robinson v. Bowe
73 F.2d 238 (Eighth Circuit, 1934)
Pratt v. Scandinavian-American Bank
174 P. 462 (Washington Supreme Court, 1918)
Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Surprise
97 N.E. 357 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1912)
Triumph Electric Co. v. Empire Furniture Co.
73 S.E. 325 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1911)
Wasserman v. McDonnell
76 N.E. 959 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1906)
Merritt v. Ward
113 Ill. App. 208 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
Tatman v. Humphrey
63 L.R.A. 738 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Harding v. Lewenberg
54 N.E. 870 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1899)
Rogers v. Barnes
38 L.R.A. 145 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1897)
Ayers, Weatherwax & Reid Co. v. Sundback
58 N.W. 4 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1894)
Bliss v. Crosier
34 N.E. 1075 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 N.E. 916, 150 Mass. 257, 1889 Mass. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-bailey-mass-1889.