Whitney v. Lowell

33 Me. 318
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedJuly 1, 1851
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 33 Me. 318 (Whitney v. Lowell) 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
Whitney v. Lowell, 33 Me. 318 (Me. 1851).

Opinion

Wells, J., orally.

The instrument was a mortgage in the regular and usual form. Parol evidence was offered, to show that it was designed to be merely a pledge, and thereby control the written contract. Such evidence was clearly inadmissible.

The unconditional sale by Garland, though prior to the payday of the note, was a violation of the trust reposed in him [320]*320by the plaintiff ; and gave to the plaintiff an instant right to reclaim the possession.

The instruction was that the sale or offer to sell by the defendant was evidence of a conversion. That fact when taken in connection with the proof of the demand and the nondelivery, constituted sufficient evidence of a conversion.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

First National Bank v. Sorenson
217 P. 948 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1923)
Shorter v. Dail
89 A. 329 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1913)
Kitchen v. Schuster
89 P. 261 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1907)
Ferguson v. Clifford
37 N.H. 86 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1858)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
33 Me. 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/whitney-v-lowell-me-1851.