Randall v. Higbee

37 Mich. 40, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 192
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided June 12, 1877·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiffs had a mortgage on a stock of goods which had not been put on record. The defendant being a creditor of the mortgagor, took by arrangement with him or his wife, sufficient of the goods to satisfy his demand, sold a part of them and retained the remainder. Plaintiffs, claiming that defendant at the time of taking the goods, had knowledge of their mortgage, brought suit against him in assumpsit on the common counts.

This suit cannot be maintained. The goods did not belong to plaintiffs; they had only a lien upon them. If defendant, with knowledge of their lien, has wrongfully done any thing to injure plaintiffs’ security they might have an action on the case against him: but there is no ground for an action of assumpsit. To warrant such an action, they should have been in position to claim the goods as owners; but that, as already stated, was not their right. Farrington v. Bristol, 35 Mich., 28. They could not therefore claim that moneys received by defendant for the goods belonged to them’ as owners; their title to the moneys could not be superior to their right to that from which the moneys had been obtained.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Randall v. Higbee, 37 Mich. 40, 1877 Mich. LEXIS 192 (Mich. 1877).

37 Mich. 40 (Randall v. Higbee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Berlein v. Eddy
104 So. 780 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1925)
Bollen v. Wilson Creek Union Grain & Trading Co.
156 P. 404 (Washington Supreme Court, 1916)
Flood v. Butzbach
72 N.W. 603 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
Harris v. Grant
23 S.E. 390 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Upton v. Hume
21 L.R.A. 493 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1893)
Sanford v. Duluth & Dakota Elevator Co.
48 N.W. 434 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1891)
Warner v. Beebe
11 N.W. 258 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1882)