Cowing v. Snow

11 Mass. 415
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1814·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Curia.

It is very clear that Barstow, the master of the vessel,

had a lien upon the barrel of flour for the freight and for the balance of its price due to him; and admitting the general property to have been in Cowing, he could not legally * take it out of the hands of Barstow until he had paid [ * 417 ] or tendered the sum due. The act of taking, therefore, was a trespass, for which Cowing was liable in damages. The only question is, to whom was he liable ? And upon this question we are inclined to think, as it was delivered into the special custody of Snow, with directions not to deliver it until the freight, &c., was paid, he had such a special property as would entitle him to the action. The tender after action commenced cannot affect this question,

Footnotes

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

Cowing v. Snow, 11 Mass. 415 (Mass. 1814).

11 Mass. 415 (Cowing v. Snow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Huntington v. Fisher
27 Iowa 276 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1869)
Wilson v. Martin
40 N.H. 88 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1860)
Soule v. White
14 Me. 436 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1837)
Srodes v. Caven
3 Watts 258 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1834)
Ingersoll v. Van Bokkelin
7 Cow. 670 (New York Supreme Court, 1827)