History
  • No items yet
midpage
Partridge v. White
59 Me. 564
Me.
1871
Check Treatment
Appleton, C. J.

The mortgage to Samuel Thompson, under which the defendant justifies, was of “ the goods and chattels now in my store in Brunswick aforesaid, a schedule of which is here*566unto annexed.” This could only cover those, then in tbe store, of which a schedule was made. The case of Abbott v. Goodwin, 20 Maine, 408, does not apply.

Whether Brown had authority originally to take the mortgage under which the plaintiff claims is immaterial. His action has been affirmed by the bringing of this suit. The defendant cannot complain, for his right was to the goods mortgaged to Thompson, and the jury by their verdict, under proper instructions, have found that none of those are embraced in the plaintiff’s claim, or that the mortgage was discharged.

The rulings of the presiding justice were in strict accordance with law. Exceptions overruled.

CuttiNg, Kent, Walton, Barrows, Danfobtti, and Tap-ley, JJ., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: Partridge v. White
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Jul 1, 1871
Citation: 59 Me. 564
Court Abbreviation: Me.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.