The Somerset reporter., 1888-01-04
Somerset s. j. Court.
DIIIMIiFk TII.N,
CHARLES DANroRrH. J. Presiding.
l.. II. Webb, Clerk.
DECEMBER TrgNi,


E. f Danforth, County Attorney.
Zenas Vaughan, Sheriff.
UeIneulau. Dec. 2s-John +. Lyford
ct ais. -. John Parker. Trover for red
OK valued at $50
Defense True the OK was yours by
virtue of a mortgage from Levi l.. JUDI
kins to YOU aud six Others whe were
bondsmcn of Judkius A. executor on his
brothers estate. The matters were set
tied by pointing new executor aud tue
plaintiifs Joining in note of Sjoo0 ana
taking rs security all of Judkins property
real and personal. ~ part OF the per
sOnal property was this red OK, Whlch
Judkin's sold to me If that was all
there was to it YOU would be entitled to
recover, but it is not all Judkins was
allowed by the plaintiffs To remain on the
farm, to manage the property, To care LOT
il aud keep 1t good. After selling TINS
OK to me hc turned out another OK, which
his daughter had purchased OF one
Gronkhitc To Samuel WOodmah, VINO
acted for himself and the rest OF the
plaintiffs. WoOdman sold the Cronhh lte
OK for S69 and applied the proceeds Tor
the benefit of the plaintiffs. The Cronk-
bi.e OK was delivered by Judkihs and ae-
cepted by Woodman in lieu Of the red OK.
Reply, bv Mr.. Woodman. | didn't un
dcrstand that by accepting the Cronkhlte
OK was letting 90 my hold OF the red
OK. We were losers any way by Jud-
kins, and it was no more than right that
he should help us, in addition to the sec
urty he gave Us
Verdict for defendant.
Merrill < Collin for Plaintiff
Walton for Defendant.
TAurs,lag, Dr. 29h.-Samuel Bunker
Us. Joseph W Gordcn ct al. Trespass
quare clausum to try the title of a farm
in the plantation of Lexington, Number
2, second range of lots - acres, with build
inys. Plaintiff puts in his little which l.
A levy on an execution. himself against
Warren Hardy Attachment was first
made ON the writ dated Jan. 20, lS72, ex-
ecution dated April Is. ls72, on which
executn levy was made and duty re-
corded
Defcnse-We have an early title under
mortgage from the same Warren Hardy
to Daniel s. Gordon, dated September Il
1872 and an assignment by Annie Gprdon,
administrative of the estate OF Daniel y.
Gordon to joseph w. Gordon, dated Nov.
II, 1850. and r. orded Jan. IL, 1856, and
an entry to forecll sc the mortgage, dated
Dec. 2, 1885.
Plaintiff reples--t.n III titles then both
come from Warren Hardy. Ours Is the
earlier aud dates from the attachment
Jan 20 - Yours dates from the re-
cording of Hardy mortgage to Gordon
May Is, 1872 so that our title is four
months ahead of yours.
Defendant-True, your record title Is
earlier than ours, but our mortgage dated
in Sept. 81, is nearly seven years earlier
than your attachment
plaintin-What of it? The record is
the thing.
Defcndant-Ycs, that is generally true;
but actual notice is as good as the con
structive notice of the record You
knew befoe your attachment of this out
landing mortgage.
At this stage of the contention the tie
PENDANT called witness, ;. j. Walton,
who had been attorney for the plaintiff
through all the proceedings, and who
wrote the mortgate of 1864, under which
the defendant claims he wrote note of
$50 secured by the mortgage. The
mortgage covered not only the iocas IN
quo but several other pieces of real estate
of which Daniel S. Gordon had taken
possession, the foundation of the eX-
ecution on which the plaintiffs levy was
made was an action of debt on two
judgments against Hardy, on one of
Which he was arrested and disclosed this
very mortgage. Mr.. Walton was present
at that disclosure, and took measures
soon after to look up the matter. l'r
found il was not recorded. He thinks ne
incurred further of Gorl.Jn himself AT
any rate he COMMUNICATED to Bunker the
result of hi.- q lrch and his bellet that
there was no varl outstanding mortgage
and soon after. there were three levies on
different portions Of the mortgagcd prop
ertv. in favor of this plaintiff Bunker,
ia favor of his attorney, Mr.. Walton and
in favor of Charles l.. Jones who acted
as Hardys attorney at his disclosure.
The plaintiff Bunker bought in Jones
title. The defendent bought in Walton's
title for $40.
As no question was made of the truth
of Mr.. Waltons testimony, there seemed
to be no question of fact for the jury.
So the case goes to the law court to set
tie the question, whether such informa-
ton as Bunker had was as good AS re-
cord notice, and which has the better
title
Brown with parlin for plaintiff.
Merrill 4 Coffin with Ware for deft
FriRay, Dee. .30.-Elgic A. Judkins VS..
Sarah X. Judkins. Troycr for Singer
sewing machine valued at $50. Elgie A.
.Iudkins is the divorced wife of Lcander
.Judkins Sarah b. Judkns is the sister
of Leander Leander and his wife and
sister lived together on the farm of his
father in Cornvlle. Leander left his
wife and two children of tender age and
went West, where he behaved, AS his
wife charges unprettly. On his return
she declined to receive him and the re-
suit was a separation and divorce. The
plaintiff says he had of her money few
hundred dollars and before going West
she induced him to buy her sewing
machine, for which she allowed him. $40
toward what he owed her. On his re-
turning from the West, he sold the
machine to the defendant for $40. lie
had before given his sister quit claim
deed OF his interest in the home place.
The plaintiff, however, with her two
children still lives there. The defendant,
in the absence of the plaintiff, had the
machine conveyed to Skowhegan, where
she works. The plaintiff claims the
machine by pur base from her husband
or by gift. The defendant makes claims
that her brother was owner and he had a
right to sell to her. The main conten-
ton was the value She defendant laborS
to reduce the price below $50 to get rid
of costs She proved that the husband
paid only SIS for the machine. Experts
were Introduced who set the value at six
OF eight dollars. The plaintiff proved that
it did good work and dressmakers thought
it. worth about $50,
The Judge instructed the jury in sub
stance on the question of damages If
they came to that question, that she
would be entitled to recover the value of
the machine at the time it was taken.
lie did not mean just exactly w at 1t
would cost, but compensation for the
taking of it. If it involed any expenses
necessarily to supply her with another
machine that would be taken into con
sderation as part of the value to her.
TO that they might add sum equal TO
interest from the time of taking if they
thought it proper or necessary, to do
Justice to her.
Verdict for plaintiff S25 this carries
full costs
Walton K Walton for plaintiff
Merrill 4 Coffin for defendants,
SATURDAY 31St, Samuel Bunker VS.. Fl.
field Ireland.
Plaintiff puts in the following note as
foundation of what follows;
Sos. Dec 20 iS7t,..