Paine v. Young

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. James Young, Jr., conveyed to the appellee, the stock of carriages and wagons, finished and unfinished; and also the materials then being in his carriage factory. The property was left in the possession of Young the bargainor, and the unfinished carriages were subsequently finished by him. Whether all the materials used in completing the carriages were the materials included in the bill of sale, or were in part bought by Young, the bargainor, after the date of the bill of sale, the evidence in the record is somewhat conflicting.

But this question in the view we take of the case is quite immaterial. Afterwards the appellants recovered a judgment against the bargainor, - and sold under execution ■ the carriages mentioned in the bill of sale. This suit is brought by- the appellee, to recover damages for the unlawful seizure and sale of the carriages by the appellants. And it is insisted ³¹⁹ on the part of the defence, that if the carriages were finished in part with the materials included in the bill of sale, and in part with materials furnished by the bargainor in the hill of sale, with the acquiescence of the appellee, and that there was such a commingling of property as to make it impossible to identify or separate the materials used, that under such circumstances the plaintiff was not entitled to recover.

And the decision in Hamilton vs. Rogers, 8 Md., 321 , is relied on in support of this contention. But that case differs' widely from the one now before us. There Rogers mortgaged not only his stock and materials then on hand, but also all the stock and materials which he might subsequently purchase in the prosecution of his business. And the Court held: 1st.

That the mortgagee could not maintain an action at law against a judgment creditor of Rogers for selling under execution, goods purchased by Rogers