Tobey v. Smith

81 Mass. 535
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1860
StatusPublished

This text of 81 Mass. 535 (Tobey v. Smith) 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.

Bluebook
Tobey v. Smith, 81 Mass. 535 (Mass. 1860).

Opinion

Metcalf, J.

The counts in tort are bad on demurrer, because they allege a conversion by husband and wife to “ their ” own use; whereas a conversion cannot, in legal contemplation be to the use of the wife. Broom on Parties, § 331. 2 Saund. Pl. & Ev. (2d ed.) 1141. 2 Dane Ab. 204. Formerly this was cause for arresting judgment, or for reversing it on a writ of error. But it was decided by the court of king’s bench, in 1820, that a count thus framed was sufficient after verdict. Keyworth v. Hill, 3 B. & Ald. 685. An action of this kind may be maintained against husband and wife, when they jointly convert property; 2 Saund. (5th ed.) 47 u, note; Newman v. Cheyney, Latch, 126; or when the wife alone converts it; but the declaration should allege that the conversion was to the use of the husband. See Catterall v. Kenyon, 3 Ad. & El. N. R. 310, and 2 Gale & Dav. 545; Estill v. Fort, 2 Dana, 237.

The count in contract is also bad, because it alleges a contract which cannot legally exist; namely, a joint contract by husband and wife with a third person. See Crasser v Eckart, 1 Binn. 586. Demurrer sustained.

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

Related

Grasser v. Eckart
1 Binn. 575 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1809)
Estill v. Fort
32 Ky. 237 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1834)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
81 Mass. 535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tobey-v-smith-mass-1860.