Chapin v. Freeland Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► Case Briefs: Case Summaries & Examples for Law Students
Chapin v. Freeland | 8 N.E. 128 (1886)
A person wrongfully in possession of someone else’s personal property is subject to a replevin action for that property’s return. If the wrongful possessor sells the property to someone else after the statute of limitations for a replevin action has run, can the original owner still get it back? That’s the question considered in Chapin versus Freeland.
In eighteen sixty-seven, Daniel Warner built a general store on his land and installed two counters belonging to Mary Freeland. In eighteen seventy-nine, Francis Chapin bought the store at a foreclosure sale. In eighteen eighty-one, Freeland removed the counters from the store.
Chapin filed a replevin action against Freeland to recover the counters. The trial court ruled for Freeland, concluding that, although Massachusetts’s six-year statute of limitations for replevin actions had run against Warner, Freeland was still entitled to repossess the counters herself. Chapin appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/chapin-...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/chapin-...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries