Case ID: vt_27/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Redfield, Ch, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Simon Shloss and Joseph Heilbronner v. Jesse Cooper and Harris Smith.
    
      Right of possession. Trespass.
    
    The plaintiffs delivered to K. certain giods, which he was to sell on commission, at certain specified prices, or return the same on demand: the defendants attached said goods, aa the property of K., and the plaintiff sued them in trespass therefor. Held, that the general property in the goods unsold and attached, and the right to the immediate possession of them, remained in the plaintiffs, and that they could maintain the action of trespass.
    Trespass for a quantity of merchandise, which the defendants had attached as the property of one S. S. Kimball. Plea, the general issue, with notice of the attachment, &c. Trial by jury, June Term, 1854, — Peck, J. presiding.
    The plaintiffs offered in evidence a bill of goods, receipted by S. S. Kimball, “ to sell or return on demand,” at the prices stated; and parol evidence tending to prove that said Kimball was in trade at Barton Village, and that said goods were left with said Kimball by the plaintiffs, at the date of said bill, to sell on commission at the prices set in said bill, or return them when called for; and that Kimball’s compensation was to be what he could obtain for said goods above the prices named in said bill, which was signed by said Kimball. The defendants objected to this evidence, for the reason that it did not show a right of possession in the plaintiffs at the time the defendants took the goods; the court overruled the objection, and admitted the evidence, to which the defendants excepted.
    Verdict for the plaintiffs.
    
      Qooper 8; Bartlett for the defendants.
    
      Kimball for the plaintiffs.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Redfield, Ch, J.

The only question made in the present case is in regard to the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s title to maintain trespass.

It must be admitted, on all hands, we think, in the present case, that the general property in the goods remained in the plaintiff’s, and we think they had, also, the right to the immediate possession of all such of them as at any time remained unsold, and that they might, therefore, well maintain trespass. Judgment affirmed,