Replevin of a stock of goods, furniture and other articles, particularly described, in a shop and house numbered 11 on Merrimack Street, Lowell.

At the trial in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., it appeared that the plaintiff was a married woman, and the defendant, a deputy sheriff, attached and took the property replevied, by virtue of two writs against Daniel W. Mason, the plaintiff’s husband. The plaintiff offered evidence tending to show that for several years previously and at different places she had carried on trade and business on her sole and separate account, and that at the time of the attachment she was carrying on trade and business at No. 11 Merrimack Street in Lowell on her sole and separate account, and that pursuant to the St. of 1862, c. 198, she had filed a certificate, which was put in evidence,* in the office of the city clerk of Lowell, that the goods replevied were her stock in said No. 11, and were her sole and separate property acquired by her in her trade and business so carried on ; that No. 11 comprised a shop in front where she carried on her trade and business, and also rooms in the rear occupied by the plaintiff, her children and her husband as their dwelling.

It appeared that the lease of said No. 11 was taken in the husband’s name,* and that the stock of goods therein and also the fixtures were paid for by note or notes signed by the husband and indorsed by one Patrick Lynch; that a stock of goods, claimed by the plaintiff as her sole and separate property, was moved from another place into the shop so leased and united with the stock already there, and purchased of one Eastman by the note or notes above named; and that the stock of goods consisted, when so united, of millinery articles, hosiery, gloves and other varieties, including ale, beer, victuals and cigars.

The plaintiff testified that she purchased the stock and fixtures, including a beer pump, soda fountain and show cases, on her sole and separate account, and that the lease was taken in the name of her husband and the notes signed by him against her wishes, but for the purpose of assisting her to carry on her sole and separate business, and that she paid the notes out of the proceeds of her sole and separate property.

The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the note or notes were paid by the husband, and that he was daily in the shop, having general superintendence of the purchases and sales of goods and managing the business there transacted, and also tending to show that he paid the notes, and that the business was carried on and managed by him. On these points the evidence of the parties was conflicting.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress