Wiggin v. Day
This text of 75 Mass. 97 (Wiggin v. Day) 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.
Opinion
As we understand these exceptions, the case was tried on the question whether Brastow obtained the wagons from the plaintiff by fraud, and the jury found that he did. Brastow, therefore, acquired no property in the wagons, which his attaching creditor can hold against the plaintiff. Buffington v. Gerrish, 15 Mass. 156. Ayers v. Hewett, 19 Maine, 281. Bussing v. Rice, 2 Cush. 48. The instruction as to the defendant’s justifying under a writ of attachment, was therefore immaterial, and not a subject of exception.
The evidence of other frauds practised by Brastow, about the same time, was rightly admitted, according to the decision in Rowley v. Bigelow, 12 Pick. 307. Exceptions overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
75 Mass. 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiggin-v-day-mass-1857.