Colby v. Porter

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Colby v. Porter

129 A. 298, 124 Me. 446, 1925 Me. LEXIS 1

DecidedJune 4, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 129 A. 298 (Colby v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Colby v. Porter, 129 A. 298, 124 Me. 446, 1925 Me. LEXIS 1 (Me. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

This case is before this court on a general motion for a new trial. In February, 1921, the defendant borrowed a pair of horse sleds from the plaintiff and used them .in his -lumbering operations. In the course of time the sleds were repeatedly broken and repaired by the defendant or his employees until of the original material only one, runner and the iron shoes remained. Upon demand by the plaintiff for a return of the sleds, the defendant offered their return in their altered condition, and .the plaintiff, refused to accept them. By their verdict, the jury .must have found that the defendant had effected a substantial change in the form or nature of the sleds without the knowledge or -consent of the owner, and by such misuse of the property had converted it to his own use. An examination of the. evidence discloses no reason for disturbing the verdict, and the entry must be, Motion overruled.

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

This case is before this court on a general motion for a new trial. In February, 1921, the defendant borrowed a pair of horse sleds from the plaintiff and used them .in his -lumbering operations. In the course of time the sleds were repeatedly broken and repaired by the defendant or his employees until of the original material only one, runner and the iron shoes remained. Upon demand by the plaintiff for a return of the sleds, the defendant offered their return in their altered condition, and .the plaintiff, refused to accept them. By their verdict, the jury .must have found that the defendant had effected a substantial change in the form or nature of the sleds without the knowledge or -consent of the owner, and by such misuse of the property had converted it to his own use. An examination of the. evidence discloses no reason for disturbing the verdict, and the entry must be, Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A. 298, 124 Me. 446, 1925 Me. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colby-v-porter-me-1925.