¶1The verdict in this case must stand, and judgment be entered accordingly. It is to be presumed that all the plaintiffs were expected to execute the covenant produced by the defendants, and that none of them contemplated being bound unless all were bound. The fact suggested by the defendants’ counsel, as proving virtually a selection by the plaintiffs, viz., that they took away from Etheridge a part of the apparatus, without notice to him that what was not taken away was for his use, would not, in our opinion, amount to sufficient evidence of a selection within the intent of the parties to the covenant.
9 Mass. 383
Andrews v. Etheridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided October 15, 1812
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1812-10-15
Replevin for sundry chattels mentioned in the writ. The defendants pleaded property in Samuel Etheridge, and not in the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs replied property in themselves, on which issue was joined to the country. This issue was tried before the Chief Justice, at the sittings here after the last October term.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1911
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1812-10-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →