Cowing v. Snow
This text of 11 Mass. 415 (Cowing v. Snow) 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.
Opinion
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,
Judgment affirmed
Lane vs. Penniman & Tr. 4 Mass. Rep. 91.— Portland Bank vs. Stubbs & Al. 6 Mass. Rep. 427. — Lewis vs. Hancock & Al. ante, 72.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
11 Mass. 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cowing-v-snow-mass-1814.