Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 18.pdf/598

 SQUIRE ATTOM'S DECISIONS

56 1

SQUIRE ATTOM'S DECISIONS UNDER THE TWELVE OR FOURTEEN MAXIMS OF EQUITY AS SPECIALLY EDITED BY HERBERT J. ADAMS MAXIM III

Where Equities are Equal, the First in Time shall prevail this Maxim is Often Misunder stood. EDITOR'S NOTE: That part of the above maxim following the word "pre vail" does not seem to be included in the Latin rendition to be found in the dictionary. The editor does not talk the language, and never heard much of it except at school and at church, — and he had a pig once that got old. It may be that at one time in the past the maxim was understood, and that the closing words have been since added to give leeway to text writers. There is one thing about the maxim as stated which will be appreciated and its publication in the above form hailed with delight by students. They can answer as to what the last five words mean, and can stumble through the rest somehow, especially by the help of the Latin version, Qui prior est tempore, potior est jure; and their answers will be just as correct and a little more novel and convincing than " I don't know," or "I give it up." Too, this part can easily be mastered by the active layman. Again, if the shorthand notes reporting the peculiar case of R. v. L. W., I. had shown a period after "prevail," the part following might well be considered a mere excuse or apology on the part of Justice Attorn for applying the maxim in the case so as to be entirely misunderstood by the editor. RAHM v. LEATHERHEAD. WOOD WILLETT, Interpleader. The equity of the case: Where goods, chattels, or personality, or either, have or has been lost or stolen, or have or has strayed, evaporated, or blown away, and the original owner sells the stuff or stuffs

to one, and on the same day offers a reward to another lot its or their return, and the one sees the belongings through a window, and the other hears of the same through a telephone, held, that where equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail this maxim is often misunderstood. Where each of two parties to a replevin suit acquires a property in property though of divers kinds, i.e. of the property first mentioned, held, that if the often misunder stood maxim cannot be applied, then equity is at a loss, etc. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The plaintiff made the necessary half dozen allegations and was granted a writ of replevin, Wm. Leatherhead and Wood Willett being named defendants. He described where the property was located, stating that he had seen it through the window of an out building annexed to the "shack" of said Wood Willett, better known as "Woodchuck" Willett. There was a bulldog chained at the door; and while intending to claim the property, he got no farther than some feet this side the dog. He managed to get Willett 's attention and told him that the property was his. Plaintiff claims Wil lett is simple-minded, and told him if he wanted the vehicle, to bring a horse, that another person claimed it, one Wm. Leatherhead, and he (Willett) was holding it for him, — that it would take a horse to pull it away from him. The constable then started to serve the writ on co-defendant, Willett, taking along with him a baseball bat, a butcher knife, a brace of revolvers, and a large steel trap — very large — bear size. Some time about the closing minutes of an hour after the con stable had left, a buckboard stopped in front