Bailey v. Maine Central Railroad
Bailey v. Maine Central Railroad
Opinion of the Court
Two actions of replevin between the same parties, reported by agreement to this
Held: 1. The case clearly shows that the lessee owned the hay crop of 1916, that he had the right to sell the same to Mr. Bean or any other person. In this case he sold to Mr. Bean, who from the evidence was a purchaser for value, and without notice of any defect in the title of Mr. Southard, if a défect had existed. But no mistake of the parties or defect in title appears. The defendant is therefore entitled to judgment in both cases, and judgment for a return of the property. Washington Ice Co. v. Webster, 62 Maine, 341. So ordered. Percy A. Hasty, and Gillin & Gillin, for plaintiff. Morse & Cook, and Fellows & Fellows, for defendant.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Edwin G. Bailey v. Maine Central Railroad Company
- Status
- Published