Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

47 Me. 416

Craig v. Gilbreth

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided July 1, 1859

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1859-07-01

Trespass for taking and carrying away certain machinery from a shop in Winthrop, Dec. 10,1857. Plea, general issue. The plaintiff claimed under a mortgage of the property to himself, from Leonard E. Craig, dated.Sept. 28,1856, and recorded Oct. 2, 1856. The mortgage was produced on the trial, and also two notes secured therein, one for $500, and the other for $200. The plaintiff testified that but $200 had been paid on the debt secured.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 1892

1 federal appellate ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-07-01

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was drawn up by

Rice, J.

¶2Trespass for taking and carrying away a certain lot of machinery, &c. The case comes up on report and exceptions. The plaintiff is understood to claim title to, or the. right to have possession of, the articles sued for, by virtue of a mortgage from one Leonard E. Craig to him, dated Sept. 28, 1856, and recorded Oct. 2d, 1856. It is also understood that the defendant claims to justify as an officer, having attached the property on a precept, Dec. 9, 1857, in favor of one Cummings, and against the said Leonard E. Craig. The mortgage is not made part of the case. We are consequently ignorant of its» terms. Nor do the pleadings show that the defendant justifies as an officer; nor is there any evidence that, at the time of the attachment of which complaint is made, Cummings had any existing legal claim against Leonard E. Craig.

¶3The case does show, however, that the plaintiff had possession of the property in controversy, by his agent, Leonard E. Craig, at the time of the attachment. That possession was sufficient to entitle him to maintain trespass against a mere wrongdoer, a naked trespasser, in which light the defendant stands before us.

¶4It also appears in the case, that the plaintiff took his mortgage to secure the payment of a note for $500. To show that this note had been paid, the defendant was permitted to prove by Mr. Burgess, subject to plaintiff’s objection, that Leonard E. Craig, who was the agent of the plaintiff, and, as we infer, had charge of the property covered by the mortgage to the plaintiff, said that “ he had received, for what he *419had disposed of then, (summer of 1857,) over six hundred dollars in cash.” These declarations, under the rule laid down by a majority of this Court, in Bank v. Steward, 37 Maine, 519, were erroneously admitted.

¶5Objections have also been taken to other instructions, based, however, principally upon the mortgages referred to in the case. These mortgages not being before us, we are unable to determine whether those objections are well taken or otherwise, - jExceptions sustained—

¶6Verdict set aside, and

¶7New trial granted.

Tenney, C. J., and Appleton, Goodenow, Davis, and Kent, JJ., concurred.
/47/me/416 · .json · Public domain