Partridge v. White
This text of 59 Me. 564 (Partridge v. White) 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.
Opinion
The mortgage to Samuel Thompson, under which the defendant justifies, was of “ the goods and chattels now in my store in Brunswick aforesaid, a schedule of which is here[566]*566unto annexed.” This could only cover those, then in tbe store, of which a schedule was made. The case of Abbott v. Goodwin, 20 Maine, 408, does not apply.
Whether Brown had authority originally to take the mortgage under which the plaintiff claims is immaterial. His action has been affirmed by the bringing of this suit. The defendant cannot complain, for his right was to the goods mortgaged to Thompson, and the jury by their verdict, under proper instructions, have found that none of those are embraced in the plaintiff’s claim, or that the mortgage was discharged.
The rulings of the presiding justice were in strict accordance with law. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
59 Me. 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partridge-v-white-me-1871.