De Young v. Frank A. Andrews Co.
Cases that cite this one
32 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Maddison Realty Co. v. Bill (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1936)
- Hellier v. Achorn (Mass. 1926)
- In re Green (2d Cir. 1926)
- Lariviere v. Longdon (Massachusetts Superior Court 2007)
- D'Aloisio v. Morton's Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1963)
- D'ALOISIO v. Morton's Inc. (Mass. 1961)
- D'Aloisio v. Morton's, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1960)
- Modern Lighting Mfg. Corp. v. Brass (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1955)
- Marshall Vessels, Inc. v. Wright (Mass. 1954)
- Premium Cut Beef Co. v. Karp (Mass. 1945)
- Dix Lumber Co. v. Gregory (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1945)
- Ronan v. Bennett (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1944)
- Quinby v. Boston & Maine Railroad (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1943)
- Commonwealth v. Albert (Mass. 1942)
- Titlebaum v. Tobin (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1942)
- Comfort v. United Insurance Finance Corp. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1942)
- Watts v. Ward (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1942)
- Universal Refining Products Co. v. Whitcomb Farms, Inc. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1941)
- Wilson v. Birkenbush (Mass. 1940)
- Steinfeld v. Spear (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1939)
- Bosworth v. Dennison Manufacturing Co. (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1939)
- Cole v. Mirsky (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1939)
- Edinburg v. Allen-Squire Co. (Mass. 1938)
- Litchman v. Burke (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1938)
- Manconi v. Santella (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1938)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
When the plaintiff relies upon demand and refusal as independent and basic evidence of conversion, it must appear that at the time of the demand and refusal the defendant had the control of the article so as to be able to comply with the demand; and the burden of proving all this is upon the plaintiff. Lord Ellenborough in Smith v. Young, 1 Camp. 439, 441. 2 Greenl. on Ev. 644, and cases cited. See also Johnson v. Couillard, 4 Allen, 446; Gilmore v. Newton, 9 Allen, 171. The fifth instruction should have been given.
We are therefore compelled to sustain the exceptions, even if there was evidence which would have warranted a finding that the plaintiff had sustained the burden. The general finding for the plaintiff so far as dependent upon this branch of the case may have turned upon the erroneous theory apparently adopted at the trial as to where the burden of proof lay.
Exceptions sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.