TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Seavey v. Potter

J. W. C. Seavey & others v. Daniel Potter

Seavey v. Potter, 121 Mass. 297 (1876)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 14, 1876
Citations
121 Mass. 2971876 Mass. LEXIS 360
Headnotes
A creditor who has proved against an estate in bankruptcy one of several promissory notes, taken for the price of goods sold and delivered to the bankrupt, cannot maintain an action of replevin for the goods, by proof that he was induced to sell them by the false and fraudulent representations of the bankrupt.
Summary
Replevin of a quantity of silk attached by the defendant, as a deputy of the sheriff of Essex, on a writ against L. R. Powers. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Gtardner, J., the plaintiffs put in evidence tending to show that the silk was sold by them to Powers in March, 1875, and that they were induced to sell the same by his false and fraudulent representations. It also appeared from the testimony of the plaintiffs’ witnesses that the silk was paid for by notes of Powers, and that, after the date of the writ of replevin, the plaintiffs joined with other creditors in a petition for involuntary bankruptcy against Powers, and that in the petition they represented and made oath that they were the owners of all said notes; and that subsequently they proved one of said notes in bankruptcy and voted in the choice of an assignee. The defendant asked the judge to rule that upon this evidence the action could not be maintained. The judge so ruled, and instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant; and the plaintiffs alleged exceptions.

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.

By the Court.

The claim of the plaintiff to rescind the sale is wholly inconsistent with his proof in bankruptcy of a promissory note taken for the price of the goods. Ormsby v. Dearborn, 116 Mass. 386 . See also Bassett v. Brown, 105 Mass. 551 . Exceptions overruled.

How later courts describe this case

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

1890: 11891: 11894: 11900: 11903: 11906: 21907: 118902026peak 1906 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Droege v. Ahrens & Ott Manufacturing Co.57 N.E. 747 (N.Y. 1900)
  2. Miller v. Hyde25 L.R.A. 42 (Mass. 1894)
  3. Stevens v. Pierce23 N.E. 1006 (Mass. 1890)
  4. Whitney v. Abbott77 N.E. 524 (Mass. 1906)
  5. Standard Varnish Works v. Haydock143 F. 318 (6th Cir. 1906)
  6. Raphael v. Reinstein28 N.E. 141 (Mass. 1891)

Most recent

  1. In re Kenyon156 F. 863 (S.D. Ohio 1907)
  2. Whitney v. Abbott77 N.E. 524 (Mass. 1906)
  3. Standard Varnish Works v. Haydock143 F. 318 (6th Cir. 1906)
  4. In re Hildebrant120 F. 992 (N.D.N.Y. 1903)
  5. Droege v. Ahrens & Ott Manufacturing Co.57 N.E. 747 (N.Y. 1900)
  6. Miller v. Hyde25 L.R.A. 42 (Mass. 1894)

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 2

DepthCaseCited by
Bassett v. Brown, 105 Mass. 551 (1870) 55
Ormsby v. Dearborn, 116 Mass. 386 (1874) 11

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