Corcoran v. White

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Corcoran v. White

15 N.E. 636, 146 Mass. 329, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 254

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedMarch 3, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 15 N.E. 636 (Corcoran v. White) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.E. 636, 146 Mass. 329, 1888 Mass. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corcoran-v-white-mass-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack