McCabe v. Maguire
James McCabe v. Robert E. Maguire
Headnotes
Summary
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.
Holmes, C. J.
So far as appears, the defendant may have had the money in his possession or control at the time of the demand upon him. He must be assumed to have had it, in view of the finding for the plaintiff. If he had had the chattels originally attached and had refused to deliver them on demand, he would have been liable in tort for a conversion. Appleton v. Bancroft, 10 Met. 231 , 236. Under circumstances like the present, one remedy at least for the conversion of money not in a bag is money had and received. See Allen v. Wright, 134 Mass. 347, 350 ; Chapman v. Cole, 12 Gray, 141 ,143 ; (Pitlock v. Wells, 109 Mass. 452, 456 ;) Mason v. Waite, 17 Mass. 560 ; Bretton v. Barnet, Owen, 86; Clarke v. Shee, Cowper, 197; Neate v. Harding, 6 Exch. 349. In such cases the defendant cannot escape on the ground that he is a deputy sheriff only, and not the sheriff. Draper v. Arnold, 12 Mass. 449 . jRobinson v. Hnsign, 6 Gray, 300 , 304, 305.
Exceptions overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.