Pullen v. Bell

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Pullen v. Bell

40 Me. 314

DecidedJuly 1, 1885

StatusPublished

This text of 40 Me. 314 (Pullen v. Bell) 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

Pullen v. Bell, 40 Me. 314 (Me. 1885).

Pincite

Opinion

Tenney, J.

So far as it regards the right of the plaintiff’s intestate to the property in the house, the principles of the cases of Russell v. Richards & al., 1 Fairf. 429, and 2 Fairf. 311, are applicable to the facts of this case, and he became the proprietor of the house, by the purchase at the officer’s sale on Dec. 15, 1849.

After the purchase, and a demand made therefor upon the defendant, the latter refused to make the delivery; but subsequently entered into a valid contract with John Doughty and James Wells, to sell the same to them. This is sufficient evidence of a conversion by the defendant, and the' action is maintained-

Defendant defaulted.

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

Tenney, J.

So far as it regards the right of the plaintiff’s intestate to the property in the house, the principles of the cases of Russell v. Richards & al., 1 Fairf. 429, and 2 Fairf. 311, are applicable to the facts of this case, and he became the proprietor of the house, by the purchase at the officer’s sale on Dec. 15, 1849.

After the purchase, and a demand made therefor upon the defendant, the latter refused to make the delivery; but subsequently entered into a valid contract with John Doughty and James Wells, to sell the same to them. This is sufficient evidence of a conversion by the defendant, and the' action is maintained-

Defendant defaulted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Me. 314, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pullen-v-bell-me-1885.