Stanley v. Neale

Decided November 15, 1867

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1867-11-15

Replevin of seventeen barrels of whiskey. At the trial in the superior court, before Lord, J., without a jury, it appeared that one Smith and one Willis, partners under the firm of Smith & Willis, went to New York, and there, by fraud .of which this plaintiff was cognizant, procured the replevied goods from one Selden, and transferred them to the plaintiff; that afterwards, on a writ by Selden against Smith & Willis for the price of the goods, the defendant, a deputy sheriff…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1867-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1948

5 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 →

Chapman, J.

¶1The plaintiff excepts to no finding or decision of the judge except his order for a return. But it had been found that the plaintiff had no title to the property replevied; that the title was in Selden, and that the defendant Neale was his agent. Upon the finding of these facts, the order was correct. For a plaintiff in replevin must maintain his case on the strength of his own title, and, if he fails, the' possession ought, as a general rule, to be restored to the defendant. Johnson v. Neale, 6 Allen, 229. This case does not furnish an exception to the rule, but comes c’early within it

¶2Exceptions overruled.