Wells v. Connable

138 Mass. 513, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 243
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided February 27, 1885·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Morton, C. J.

We are of opinion that the second count of .the plaintiff’s declaration is a count in tort in the nature of trover. [515] It alleges that the defendant “ has converted said property to his own use.” This allegation cannot be rejected as surplusage; it gives character to the count.

If the defendant had demurred to the count, he would have been met by the answer that it was a good count in trover. The count means the same as if it had been, in form, that the defendant has converted the property to his own use by a sale without notice to the plaintiff. The defendant has the right thus to interpret it, and to come to the trial relying upon the settled law that a mortgagor cannot maintain trover against his mortgagee. Landon v. Emmons, 97 Mass. 37. Exceptions sustained.

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

Wells v. Connable, 138 Mass. 513, 1885 Mass. LEXIS 243 (Mass. 1885).

138 Mass. 513 (Wells v. Connable) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hudon v. First Safe Deposit National Bank of New Bedford
24 Mass. App. Dec. 1 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1962)
Donahue v. Leventhal
19 N.E.2d 544 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1939)
Harvey v. Anacone
184 A. 889 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1936)
Baird v. Olsheski
283 P. 321 (California Court of Appeal, 1929)
Ettinger v. Norton
131 Ill. App. 521 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
Duggan v. Wright
32 N.E. 159 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1892)
Wells v. White
8 N.E. 442 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
Dahill v. Booker
5 N.E. 496 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)