TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Buffington v. Gerrish

Jonathan Buffington and Another versus Joseph M. Gerrish and Another

Buffington v. Gerrish, 15 Mass. 156 (1818)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 15, 1818
Citations
15 Mass. 156
Headnotes
Merchandise was purchased upon a credit, through the false representations of the vendee; and after the delivery to him the same was attached by his creditors. It was held, that 111" vendor had not so parted with his property in the merchandise but that he ought reclaim it in the hands of the officer who had attached it.
Summary
Replevin for two pipes of brandy, and sundry other articles of merchandise. The defendants pleaded property in one Ezekiel Walker, traversing the property of the plaintiffs, and issue was joined on the traverse. At the trial of this issue before Wilde, J., at the last October term in this county, it was admitted by the plaintiffs that the articles in question were sold by them to Walker, and that his notes for the stipulated price were received by * them, payable in two and four months from the date; but they contended that the sale was void, on the ground of fraud and deception practised upon them by Walker. It was in evidence that Walker was an inhabitant of Portland, and in April, 1816, applied to the plaintiffs, merchants, in Boston, to whom he was a stranger, for the purchase of goods; and that he represented himself as a merchant engaged largely in business, having one store in Portland and another in the country, and of undoubted ability to pay. The plaintiffs then wished for the recommendation of some one known to them, and Walker referred them to a Mr. M’Lellan, a merchant in Boston, for information—of whom, however, for some reason whicli did not appear, the plaintiffs made no inquiry, but, confiding in the representations made by Walker, completed the sale, and delivered the goods: whereupon Walker immediately transported them to Portland, where they were attached by the defendants, being deputy-sheriffs of this county, at the suit of divers creditors of Walker, to whom he had been indebted for several years. The plaintiffs then proved that the representations made by Walker were false and fraudulent; that he had no store in Portland,, although he had one there a number of years ago, but soon failed, and had since been wholly without visible property or credit, and deeply involved in debt. The plaintiffs, finding that they had been imposed upon by Walker, pursued him to Portland, where they found the goods in question, which had been attached by the defendants, as above stated; whereupon they commenced this suit. The judge instructed the jury that, if they should be of opinion that the sale of the goods was effected by the fraudulent misrepresentations and deception of Walker, it would be sufficient to render the sale void; and that it might be avoided by the plaintiffs, notwithstanding the attachments of the bond fide creditors of Walker, without notice of the fraud ; and the jury returned their verdict for the plaintiffs accordingly. * If the said directions to the jury were, in the opinion of the whole Court, substantially correct, judgment was to be rendered upon the verdict; otherwise, the plaintiffs were to become nonsuit.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

It is not necessary, in this case, to consider whether the property could be reclaimed by the plaintiffs, out of the hands of a bona fide purchaser ignorant of the fraud by which Walker obtained possession. As the possession of the goods by Walker, with the appearance of ownership, was with the consent of the plaintiffs, it is probable such sale would be held good, (a)

The case here is very different. The plaintiffs endeavor to recover their merchandise, as soon as the fraud practised upon them is discovered. It never had become the property of Walker, and the right of the plaintiffs to reclaim it against him is indisputable. He had done no act * by which any of his creditors had been deceived with respect to this property; for their debts all existed before he acquired the possession. They claim title to it as his, not as their property; yet they cannot, under the circumstances proved, and the fact of fraud found by the jury, establish it as his. They are in the same condition, as to their debts, they were in before the commission of the fraud; and they ought not to reap the fruits of it, no credit having been given on account of this property. (b)

Judgment on the verdict.

а) Vide Parker vs. Patrick, 5 T. R. 175. — Harwood vs. Smithy 2 T. R. 750.— Parker vs. Gillies, 2 Camp. 336, n.

Noble vs. Adams, 7 Taunt. 39. — Kilby vs. Wilson, R. & M. 178.— Taylor vs. Plumer, 3 M. & 562. — Helps vs. Glenister, 8 B. & Cr. 553. — Hawse vs. Crow, 1 R. & M. 414.— Gladstone vs. Hawden, 1 M & S. 517. — Earl of Bristol vs. Wilmore, l B. & C. 514. — Rapp vs. Lapham, 2 B. & A. 795. — Parker vs. Gillies, 2 Camp. 336 — Fergusson vs. Carrington, 9 B. & Cr. 59. — Palmer vs. Hand, 13 Johns. 454 .

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 42 cases

View all citing references →
1821–1822: 11825–1826: 11835–1836: 21837–1838: 11839–1840: 31841–1842: 31843–1844: 21845–1846: 11847–1848: 21853–1854: 21855–1856: 11857–1858: 21859–1860: 21863–1864: 11865–1866: 11869–1870: 11871–1872: 11875–1876: 11881–1882: 11883–1884: 21885–1886: 21889–1890: 11891–1892: 21895–1896: 11905–1906: 11915–1916: 11927–1928: 11937–1938: 11941–1942: 118212026peak 1839 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Root v. French13 Wend. 570 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1835)
  2. In re Jeandros Dye & Print Works, Inc.22 F. Supp. 26 (D. Mass. 1938)
  3. George v. Kimball41 Mass. 234 (1837)
  4. Farley v. Lincoln51 N.H. 577 (1872)
  5. Ash v. Putnam1 Hill & Den. 302 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)
  6. Cary v. Hotailing1 Hill & Den. 311 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1841)

Most recent

  1. Ash v. Putnam1 Hill & Den. 302 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1941)
  2. In re Jeandros Dye & Print Works, Inc.22 F. Supp. 26 (D. Mass. 1938)
  3. McAuliffe & Burke Co. v. Gallagher154 N.E. 755 (Mass. 1927)
  4. New Albany National Bank v. Brown114 N.E. 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 1916)
  5. Sonnesyn v. Akin104 N.W. 1026 (N.D. 1905) · Concurrence
  6. Price v. Elmbank72 F. 610 (N.D. Cal. 1896)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list