Case ID: mass_14/html/0428-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      *Per Curiam, viz., Cushing, C. J., Sargeant, Dana, and Sumner, justices.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ESSEX,
    NOVEMBER TERM, 1785.
    Towne versus Collins.
    This was an action of traver for oxen. One Hutchins stole the cattle from the plaintiff, and sold them to Collins, who was not privy to the theft, nor had any knowledge of their being the property of the plaintiff. Hutchins was afterwards convicted of the theft, and sentenced, at the instance of the attorney-general, to pay threefold damages to the plaintiff, according to the statute. Towne had no other agency in the prosecution than procuring the arrest of the thief upon a warrant, and attending at the trial as a witness, upon being summoned.
    The question referred to the Court was, whether the conviction and sentence were a bar to the plaintiff’s recovering in this action.
    The authorities cited were Kel. 35, 48, at the Old Bailey, 1664. - 1 Mod. Rep. 288. — Bac. Abr., title Trover. — 2 Rolle’s Air. 557, pl. 24.
   *Per Curiam, viz., Cushing, C. J., Sargeant, Dana, and Sumner, justices.

There being no market overt here, and actual satisfaction of the threefold damages not having been made to the plaintiff, the conviction and sentence can be no bar to this action of trover, 
      
      
         [Long on Sales, Rand’s edition, 164—175, and cases there referred to.— Baldwin vs. Dame, 8 Mass. Rep. 518.-Sed vide Rowley & Al. vs. Bigelow, 12 Mass. Rep. 307.—Ed.]