Corcoran v. White

15 N.E. 636, 146 Mass. 329, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 254
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided March 3, 1888·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Knowlton, J.

At the trial the plaintiffs rested their claim to the replevied horses solely upon their title and right of possession as assignees in insolvency of George W. Davis. There was evidence tending to show that one Bridges was a part owner of the horses, but the jury were instructed in effect that it was immaterial whether Bridges was or was not a joint owner with the plaintiffs, and that if the plaintiffs showed that they were owners or part owners of the property replevied they could recover.

In the recent case of Fay v. Duggan, 135 Mass. 242, it was - held, upon a review of the. authorities, that one of two or more joint owners of a chattel cannot maintain replevin for it without joining the other part owners as plaintiffs. That case is decisive of the one at bar. Exceptions sustained.

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

Corcoran v. White, 15 N.E. 636, 146 Mass. 329, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 254 (Mass. 1888).

15 N.E. 636 (Corcoran v. White) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berkman v. Ross
29 Mass. App. Dec. 190 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1964)
Bain v. Trixler
56 N.E. 690 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)
Brown v. Ravenscraft
44 A. 170 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1898)
Bray v. Raymond
44 N.E. 131 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
George v. McGovern
53 N.W. 899 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1892)