Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Hodgeden v. Hubbard | 18 Vt. 504 (1846)
It’s not uncommon for buyers to purchase large household appliances on credit. But what happens when a seller discovers that a buyer lied to obtain that credit? In 1846, the Vermont Supreme Court explored the limited circumstances that allow a person to use force against another to recapture fraudulently obtained property in Hodgeden versus Hubbard.
Aaron Hodgeden purchased a stove on credit. To induce the salesclerk, Gustavus Hubbard, to make the sale on credit, Hodgeden claimed that he owned a farm and ran a large manufacturing business. But shortly after Hodgeden departed with the stove, Hubbard learned that Hodgeden had lied about his financial situation and was generally known to be irresponsible.
Hubbard and his colleague, William Ayres, pursued Hodgeden with the intent to retake possession of the stove. Hodgeden refused to surrender the property, and the exchange between the parties grew heated. After Hodgeden drew a knife on Hubbard and Ayres, one of the salesclerks forcibly restrained him while the other took possession of the stove.
Hodgeden sued Hubbard and Ayres for assault and battery. It was undisputed that Hodgeden’s possession of the stove was unlawful because it was fraudulently obtained. Hubbard and Ayres therefore had the right to recapture, or retake, possession of the property. But the parties disputed whether Hubbard and Ayres could rightfully use force against Hodgeden to effectuate that possession.
Hubbard and Ayres requested a jury instruction that they weren’t liable for assault and battery as long as they didn’t use any more force against Hodgeden than was necessary in the situation. The trial court rejected that instruction, stating instead that Hubbard and Ayres were liable if they used any physical force against Hodgeden. The court explained that when Hodgeden refused to peaceably surrender the property, Hubbard and Ayres should’ve pursued legal action against him rather than exerting physical force.
The trial court found in favor of Hodgeden. Hubbard and Ayres appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
