Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

98 Mass. 511

Scott v. Perley

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 15, 1868

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1868-01-15

<p>On trial of an action of replevin of oxen bought by the defendant from an administrator of the estate of a person deceased, it appeared that the plaintiff agreed with the administrator to submit to referees “everything in dispute between them;” that “these oxen were in dispute; ” that the referees awarded that the plaintiff should pay a certain sum “ for the claim of the estate in the oxen; ” and that the administrator sold the oxen to the defendant to satisfy this sum, after neglect of the plaintiff to pay it on demand. Held, that the judge rightly ruled that “ by virtue of the submission to reference and the award of the referees the plaintiff had become the owner of the property, and was entitled to recover,” although there was also evidence tending to show that the oxen were property of the deceased at the time of his death.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently December 1880

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-01-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Chapman, J.

¶1Mr. Smith, the administrator of James T. Scott, testified, on behalf of the defendant, that everything in dispute was to be referred, and that the oxen, which are the subject of this action, were in dispute. Thus the referees had full authority in the matter. They awarded that the plaintiff should pay to Smith, for the claim of the estate in one yoke of oxen, one hundred and fifty dollars.” This is the whole of their award on that subject. They did not award that Smith should transfer or convey to the plaintiff any interest in them, or release any right in them, or that they should become the property of the plaintiff upon any contingency, or on performance of any condition. But the award treats them as belonging to the plaintiff already, and establishes the amount which he owes the estate on account of them, and awards payment of that sum. The judge therefore ruled correctly that, by virtue of the submission and award, the plaintiff had become the owner of the property, and was entitled to recover. He is entitled to recover, not because the award transferred the property to him, but because it decided, in effect, that they were his property already, and that he owed the estate a certain sum on account of them.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.

/98/mass/511 · .json · Public domain