Rodick v. Coburn

Decided April 4, 1878

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1878-04-04

On exceptions. Trover for a watch. John W. MeDuffee, once the undisputed owner of the watch, delivered it, with five others, to the plaintiffs, in pursuance of a sale or as security. They afterwards replaced it in McDuffee’s hands, and took from him the following writing: “Lewiston, December 23, 1874. Received of J. A. Rodick & Co. one Nord-man, freres, stem winder, No. 21,549. Money or watch to be returned Saturday next. Yalue, $200.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1888

3 state decisions

Relies on Holton v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-04-04

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Walton, J.

¶1If the owner of an article of personal property delivers it to another to sell, the latter has no right to deliver it to his creditor in payment of his own pre-existing debt; and if he does so, the owner may maintain trover against the creditor without a previous demand.

¶2To the point that such a disposition of the property is unauthor*172ized. Parsons v. Webb, 8 Maine, 38. Holton v. Smith, 7 N. H. 446.

¶3To the point that no previous demand is necessary. Galvin v. Bacon, 11 Maine, 28. Whipple v. Gilpatrick, 19 Maine, 427. Badlam v. Tucker, 1 Pick. 389, 397. Woodbury v. Long, 8 Pick. 543. Hunt v. Holton, 13 Pick. 216.

¶4• The instructions to the jury were in accordance with these well established rules of law.

¶5Exceptions overruled. Judgment on the verdict.

Appleton, C. J., Barrows, Yirg-in, Peters and Libbey, JJ., concurred.