Case Name: Alonzo P. Gilson vs. James E. Gwinn
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1871-03
Citations: 107 Mass. 126
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alonzo P. Gilson vs. James E. Gwinn.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 107
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
Alonzo P. Gilson vs. James E. Gwinn.
One who carries a chattel at the sole request and for the sole convenience of a bailee thereof has no lien thereon for his services, as against the owner.
Tort for the conversion of a sewing machine. At the trial in • the superior court, before Reed, J., the plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that, being the owner of the machine, he let it to Betsey Bunton for a dollar a week, payable in advance; that she paid for some weeks, but afterwards stopped payment; that" some time after she stopped payment she moved from Springfield Street in Boston, where she had been living, to Myrtle Street, and employed the defendant, who was licensed to remove furniture from place to place in Boston, to remove her furniture, including the machine, to Myrtle Street; that she neglected to pay the defendant, who thereupon retained the machine, claiming a lien thereon for his services ; that the plaintiff, having subsequently gone to Springfield Street and ascertained that the lessee had moved to Myrtle Street, called on her there and learned that the defendant had the machine; and that he then saw the defendant, and desired him to accept a deposit of other goods of the lessee in place of the machine, but the defendant refused, and he then demanded the machine.
The defendant offered no evidence, and the judge ruled that he had no lien. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and the judge reported the case for the consideration c.f this court; if the ruling was correct, the verdict to stand; if on the facts reported the defendant had a lien on the machine, then judgment to be for the defendant.
O. JH. Hudson, for the defendant.
J. F. Wilson, for the plaintiff, was stopped by the court.

Opinion:
Wells, J.
The lessee of the sewing machine had a right of possession until demand of return by the owner; but she had no right of property which she could transfer, and no authority by which she could confer any right of property upon another. She could not, therefore, give the defendant a lien upon the property for its carriage for her convenience and at her request alone.
The defendant not having a lien upon the property as against the owner, his possession became wrongful when he refused to surrender it to the plaintiff on demand therefor.
Judgment on the verdict for the plaintiff.