Hardy v. Munroe

Decided June 25, 1879

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1879-06-25

<p>One who “ consigns ” goods to another, to he paid for only as they are sold hy him, has not such possession or right to immediate possession as will support an action of tort for the conversion of the goods.</p>

Relies on Ring v. Neale

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1879-06-25

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 2003

12 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Colt, J.

¶1The declaration in this case is in tort for the conversion of the plaintiff’s goods; it is for an injury to the possession, not for a wrongful act affecting only a reversionary interest in property, the possession of which was then in another. It was necessary for the plaintiffs, therefore, to show possession, or the right to immediate possession in themselves.

¶2The uncontradicted evidence was that the goods alleged to have been converted were consigned by the plaintiffs to one Harvey to be paid for only as they were sold by him. This gave the legal possession of the property to the consignee. Fair-bank v. Phelps, 22 Pick. 535.

¶3The ruling of the court, that the plaintiffs could not maintain their action, was clearly based upon the pleadings, and is fully supported by the decision in Winship v. Neale, 10 Gray, 382. See also Ring v. Neale, 114 Mass. 111.

¶4Exceptions overruled.