Jordan v. Parker

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Jordan v. Parker

56 Me. 557

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJuly 1, 1869

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 56 Me. 557 (Jordan v. Parker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jordan v. Parker, 56 Me. 557 (Me. 1869).

Pincite

Opinion

Appleton, C. J.

This is an action of replevin. The plaintiffs offered to prove that one Alonzo P. Moore, on the eleventh day of April, and on the first day of May, A. D. 1868, purchased a quantity of dry goods of the plaintiffs in Boston ; that, at the time of these purchases, Moore falsely and deceitfully represented the amount of his then present indebtedness and the amount of property he was worth, and his ability to pay for the goods thus purchased; that they were induced to sell said goods to him on credit, by means of said false and fraudulent representations; and that the plaintiffs, claiming they had a right, by reason of said fraud and deceit, to reclaim said goods, on the nineteenth day of May, 1868, replevied them from the defendant, who is sheriff1 of the county of Androscoggin, and who had attached and taken possession of them on writs of divers other creditors of Moore. This evidence the presiding Justice excluded.

The defendant is not a bona fide purchaser nor is he entitled to the rights of one. He represents only the rights of Moore. The goods were sold on credit. It does not appear that any note was given therefor. If no note was given, there was nothing to return to effect a recision. Obtaining goods by fraudulent pretenses is a tortious taking, and no demand is necessary to enable the person defrauded [559]*559to maiiitain replevin for the goods. Ayers v. Hewett, 19 Maine, 281; Thurston v. Blanchard, 22 Pick., 18. One who, by the form of a sale, fraudulently obtains possession of chattels, with the intent never to pay for them, has no property which his attaching creditor can hold against the vendors. Buffington v. Gerrish, 15 Mass., 156; Wiggin v. Day, 9 Gray, 97.

Even if a note had been given, it would have been sufficient if the plaintiffs tendered it at the trial. Ayers v. Hewett, supra. Exceptions sustained.

Cutting, Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ., concurred.

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

Appleton, C. J.

This is an action of replevin. The plaintiffs offered to prove that one Alonzo P. Moore, on the eleventh day of April, and on the first day of May, A. D. 1868, purchased a quantity of dry goods of the plaintiffs in Boston ; that, at the time of these purchases, Moore falsely and deceitfully represented the amount of his then present indebtedness and the amount of property he was worth, and his ability to pay for the goods thus purchased; that they were induced to sell said goods to him on credit, by means of said false and fraudulent representations; and that the plaintiffs, claiming they had a right, by reason of said fraud and deceit, to reclaim said goods, on the nineteenth day of May, 1868, replevied them from the defendant, who is sheriff1 of the county of Androscoggin, and who had attached and taken possession of them on writs of divers other creditors of Moore. This evidence the presiding Justice excluded.

The defendant is not a bona fide purchaser nor is he entitled to the rights of one. He represents only the rights of Moore. The goods were sold on credit. It does not appear that any note was given therefor. If no note was given, there was nothing to return to effect a recision. Obtaining goods by fraudulent pretenses is a tortious taking, and no demand is necessary to enable the person defrauded [559]*559to maiiitain replevin for the goods. Ayers v. Hewett, 19 Maine, 281; Thurston v. Blanchard, 22 Pick., 18. One who, by the form of a sale, fraudulently obtains possession of chattels, with the intent never to pay for them, has no property which his attaching creditor can hold against the vendors. Buffington v. Gerrish, 15 Mass., 156; Wiggin v. Day, 9 Gray, 97.

Even if a note had been given, it would have been sufficient if the plaintiffs tendered it at the trial. Ayers v. Hewett, supra. Exceptions sustained.

Cutting, Walton, Dickerson, Barrows and Daneorth, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 Me. 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-v-parker-me-1869.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack