Pratt v. Boston Heel & Leather Co.
This text of 134 Mass. 300 (Pratt v. Boston Heel & Leather 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
C. Allen, J.
Since Moore did not prevail in his action of replevin, but was defeated therein, and since the defendant has not now and never had any authority from Moore to retain possession of the goods, it is difficult to see any ground of defence to this action growing out of Moore’s relation to the property. Harrington v. King, 121 Mass. 269. 2 Kent Com. 566, and note. But the new trial was granted on the issue of the value of the wool alone; and no other question was open to the defendant. Seccomb v. Provincial Ins. Co. 4 Allen, 152. On both grounds, therefore, the entry must be Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
134 Mass. 300, 1883 Mass. LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-boston-heel-leather-co-mass-1883.