Downer v. Cripps

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Downer v. Cripps

49 N.E. 644, 170 Mass. 345, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 215

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedFebruary 26, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 49 N.E. 644 (Downer v. Cripps) 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

Downer v. Cripps, 49 N.E. 644, 170 Mass. 345, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 215 (Mass. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Morton, J.

For aught that appears, judgment will follow in due course upon the verdict which was recovered by the defendant against the plaintiffs when the order for continuance is vacated or rescinded. We think, therefore, that the verdict must be regarded as establishing conclusively the plaintiffs’ right to the stock, and that the sale was unwarranted. Burlen v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200. Hawks v. Truesdell, 99 Mass. 557. Franklin v. Greene, 2 Allen, 519. In crediting the proceeds of the sale to the defendant, the plaintiffs acted on the assumption, which was strengthened by conduct on the part of the defendant, that the sale had been rightfully made by them. It turns out on investigation that it was not rightfully made. In what respect the sale was wrongful does not appear. But we think that the defendant, having seen fit to repudiate the sale and to sue for and recover the value of the stock, cannot now be permitted, in an action by the plaintiffs to recover back money which they paid for him, to allege that the sale was a valid one, or, because the plaintiffs have wrongfully sold his stock, to avoid liability to them for money which they have paid on his account. He gets all that he is entitled to if he gets the value of his stock. He ought not also to get the benefit of what the plaintiffs have paid at his request, there being nothing to show that the parties were engaged in unlawful transactions. Durant v. Burt, 98 Mass. 161. Jones v. Ames, 135 Mass. 431.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Morton, J.

For aught that appears, judgment will follow in due course upon the verdict which was recovered by the defendant against the plaintiffs when the order for continuance is vacated or rescinded. We think, therefore, that the verdict must be regarded as establishing conclusively the plaintiffs’ right to the stock, and that the sale was unwarranted. Burlen v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200. Hawks v. Truesdell, 99 Mass. 557. Franklin v. Greene, 2 Allen, 519. In crediting the proceeds of the sale to the defendant, the plaintiffs acted on the assumption, which was strengthened by conduct on the part of the defendant, that the sale had been rightfully made by them. It turns out on investigation that it was not rightfully made. In what respect the sale was wrongful does not appear. But we think that the defendant, having seen fit to repudiate the sale and to sue for and recover the value of the stock, cannot now be permitted, in an action by the plaintiffs to recover back money which they paid for him, to allege that the sale was a valid one, or, because the plaintiffs have wrongfully sold his stock, to avoid liability to them for money which they have paid on his account. He gets all that he is entitled to if he gets the value of his stock. He ought not also to get the benefit of what the plaintiffs have paid at his request, there being nothing to show that the parties were engaged in unlawful transactions. Durant v. Burt, 98 Mass. 161. Jones v. Ames, 135 Mass. 431.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 N.E. 644, 170 Mass. 345, 1898 Mass. LEXIS 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downer-v-cripps-mass-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack