Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/896

 882 fbdbbaIj eeposteh. �hîmunder a contracfc by which they were to have 30 percent. of the proceeds for sawing, handling, and commissions. They afterwards became bankrupt, and the plaintiff sold one-half the lumber remaining on hand for $4,000, and worked up the other half, for which he received $5,750. They received fiome other payments from Eobs & Leavitt. �The defendants, living in the western part of Massachu- setts, bought of Ross & Leavitt certain lots of logs that were being driven down the river in September, October, and No- vember, 1876, and which, of course, never arrived at Hart- ford. They bought in good faith, without notice of the plain- tiff's title, .and had made payment of the full priee of about $14,000, before he made a demand upon them, March 1, 1877. . The plaintiff had no knowledge of the defendants' purchase until November 26, 1876. Between that day and the day of the demand, the defendants had built a mill for sawing the logs, at a cost of about $3,000, and had paid to Ross & Leavitt $621.20. Ross & Leavitt had made sales of other logs in like manner to persons not before the court. �The case was referred. �The referee found the foregoing faots, and submitted the points of law, with his rulings upon them, to the court. He found that the plaintiff retained the property in the logs; that he had not waived his rights ; that he was entitled to reeover in this action the balance due him from Ross & Leavitt, $3,084.51, and interest at 7 per cent, from the date of the writ, but not the full value of the logs at the time of the conversion; that no deduction was to be made for the cost of the mill, because it appeared to be still worth its cost ; nor for the payment of $621.20, unless the whole value of the logB should be the measure of damages, in which case this payment, which was made after the plaintiff knew of the sale to the defendants, should be deducted. �Caleb Blodgett, for plaintiff, cited, (of cases not referred to in the opinion of the court :) �On question of property: Hart v. Carpenter, 24 Conn. 427; Fifield T. Elmer, 25 Mich. 48; De Wolf v. Babbett, 4 Masoa, 289. ����