Norwich bulletin., 1922-11-29
WINS IN REPLEvIE SUIT
 AGAINST DEPUTY SHERIPP

Louis Grow of Springfield wins his re- plevin suit against Deputy Sheriff ". F.
 Broughton of Stonington for an auto
 mobile, according to decision handed
 down here Tuesday by Judge L. P. wal
 do Marvin of the superior court before whom the case was tried about two weeks ago.
 One of the interesting developments of
 the testimony in the case was that the
 automobile was carrying load of liquor
 at the time of a collision with another car.
 In his memorandum Of decision Judge
 Marvin says:
 Plaintiff doing business in haSsachu-
 sets as United Motors was the former owner of an automobile then located in Massachusetts, and on Aug. 12, 1920, ex-
 sc1ted a conditional bill ot sale of the same to Natalie Ceiiini who also resided ! in Maseachusetts) whershy the owner retained title to the car and the right to take possession of the sane on Gel
 hnfs failure to keep any of the agree
 ments on his part contained in said bill
 of sale; but the car was delivered to Natalie Ceiiini as a -lezsee'' he having
 paid $1,oe0 down and having given ten
 notes of $3z0 each payable a month ! apart, with interest. Among the agree |
 the car should not be used for any un-
 lawful purpose. This contract vas lived up to by CeIlini til the September pay nsent became due, when he failed to pay the note of S$3a due Sept. 12 till
 Sept. if, and he has never paid the in- terest.
 On Sept 2s, 19za. thS car, eperatad by
 a driver in the employ of Cellini, came into collision with a car in the town of
 StoniRgton, Conn. This collision disclos- ed the fact that the car was Ioaded vitt iiQuor, and it was at once taken into possession of federal authorities charged
 with the enforcsnasnt of the Volsteac
 act in Connecticut who directed loca
 garage man. R. M Delag=ange, to taAt
 charge of 1t for the government. whnt
 it was in his possession, on Sept 30, ar
 attempt at least was made to attach 1t
 in an action brought by the owner o
 the car, by the defendant, a deput!
 sheriff A Mr. Bean, employed by the plaintiff came to Connecticut the next day ant made demand on Delasrange for the ca and he was given possession but upoi this fact coming to the knowledge of tn deputy sheriff he directed that the ca be returned to Delasrange. which wa , done In the meantime Bean had secure,
 | bond, q release of the car to Louis Grew 5 and then instituted this action of replevil in the name of his employer against tn 2 deputy sheriff.
 : A number of claims were made b. counsel for the plaintiff on the trial o . the case, but inasmuch as 1t seems to tn , court that the preliminary question rais . ed dispoSes of the whole matter, th |. other claims need not be considered l The contract made in Massachusett I was what is there known as a condition : al bill of sale (rather than a bili of sal for equity), and as such does not hav l Ito be recorded. The vender retains til
 to the car and can repossess himself o
 !, 1t at any time the vendes is in fault Tn e vendee has a special or qualified interes !. which can be made the subject ef mort
 gage or assignment, but in that case n , nortgagee or assignee can take pos tsession of the mortga$ed property wheth [ CT there has been a default in the mort : gagor's agreement with the first vendor : lor not, without tendering the latter tn amount Of his due No such tender wa ] alleged or proved in this case. { This vas contract made in Aasss : Ichusetts, between residents iiying in tha ! stxte. and so far as appears, with th 5 idea it was to be carried out in tha B Etate. ol The law of Massachusetts is the law O k the place where ttis contract was made | and is of character which Is not pens : Tor particularly injurious to the state Q ! C6nneeticnt Or its citizknA h a sSns Fl t fixes the status Of personal prorerts f such as an automobile. and should b
 made effectual here as in Massachusetfi s This being 50 there was no propert I of Celinni in the car subject to or whic 2 could be taken by attachment, and juds !. + the plaintiff.