Case ID: nh_60/html/0030-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BlN<jj^J\\í, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parker v. Marvell.
    A vendor’s possession, as evidence of a fraudulent sale, held, under the circumstances of the case, not to be satisfactorily explained.
    Replevin for a wagon. Facts found by a referee. The plaintiff bought the wagon of one Taylox’, and paid for it January ■ 23, 1877, but having no place to store it through the winter, he told Taylor that he et>uld use it as he might have occasion if he would allow it to remain in his shed, to which Taylor assented. Sleighing disappeared sooix after, and the plaintiff took the wagon and used it several days, during which time he offered it for sale. He then replaced it in Taylor’s shed, in whose custody it was allowed to remain, to be used by him as his own, until May 27, 1878, when it was attached by the defendant, a deputy sheriff, as the property of Taylor. The sale was made in good faith, without intent to delay or defraud Taylor’s creditors, ancjdHlB^bLcrstood that the plaintiff had the right at any time to 1 Taylor’s custody and^ispose of it as he chose.
    
      R(f^, for
    
      Wadli or the defendant.
   BlN<jj^J\í, J.

The arrangement was a secret inference of law. Coburn v. Pickering, pson, 43 N. H. 130; Coolidge v. Me Stockwell, 55 N. H. 561; Cutting v. Jackson, 56 N. Holmes, 58 N. H. 293; Flagg v. Pierce, 58 N. no satisfactory explanation of the vendor’s posses-was in Towne v. Rice, 59 N. H. 412, and French v. Hall, 9 H. 137. The wagon was used by the vendor for more than a yeai\ and from ordinary observation a neighbor or creditor would have supposed it to be the vendor’s property.

Judgment for the plaintiff.

Allen, J.,. did not sit: the others concurred.