De Young v. Frank A. Andrews Co.
This text of 100 N.E. 1080 (De Young v. Frank A. Andrews Co.) 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
When the plaintiff relies upon demand and refusal as independent and basic evidence of conversion, it must appear that at the time of the demand and refusal the defendant had the control of the article so as to be able to comply with the demand; and the burden of proving all this is upon the plaintiff. Lord Ellenborough in Smith v. Young, 1 Camp. 439, 441. 2 Greenl. on Ev. 644, and cases cited. See also Johnson v. Couillard, 4 Allen, 446; Gilmore v. Newton, 9 Allen, 171. The fifth instruction should have been given.
We are therefore compelled to sustain the exceptions, even if there was evidence which would have warranted a finding that the plaintiff had sustained the burden. The general finding for the plaintiff so far as dependent upon this branch of the case may have turned upon the erroneous theory apparently adopted at the trial as to where the burden of proof lay.
Exceptions sustained.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
100 N.E. 1080, 214 Mass. 47, 1913 Mass. LEXIS 1066, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-young-v-frank-a-andrews-co-mass-1913.