Lexplug logoLexplug

Hodgeden v. Hubbard

Supreme Court of Vermont
18 Vt. 504 (1846)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An owner of property, or their agent, who has been deprived of it by fraud may use the amount of force reasonably necessary to retake the property from the fraudulent possessor, particularly when that possessor unlawfully resists the repossession.


Facts:

  • The plaintiff, Hodgeden, acquired a stove from the defendants through fraudulent and false pretenses.
  • Due to the fraud, legal ownership of the stove never transferred from the defendants to Hodgeden.
  • The defendants later located Hodgeden with the stove and attempted to reclaim their property.
  • In response to the defendants' attempt to retake the stove, Hodgeden resisted by drawing a knife.
  • The defendants then used force to restrain Hodgeden and successfully repossessed the stove.

Procedural Posture:

  • Hodgeden (plaintiff) sued Hubbard and others (defendants) in the county court (a trial court).
  • At trial, the defendants requested a jury instruction stating they were justified in using necessary force to retake their property.
  • The trial court refused the requested instruction and instead charged the jury that the defendants would be liable even if they used only the force necessary to retake the stove against the plaintiff's resistance.
  • The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, Hodgeden.
  • The defendants appealed the judgment to the state's highest appellate court.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does an owner's agent have the right to use force reasonably necessary to retake property that was obtained by fraud, when the fraudulent possessor unlawfully resists the repossession with force?


Opinions:

Majority - Williams, Ch. J.

Yes. An owner or their agent may use force reasonably necessary to retake property from one who obtained it by fraud. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's possession was unlawful from the start, and he had no right to resist the owner's legitimate attempt to reclaim the property. By drawing a knife to protect his fraudulent possession, the plaintiff became the aggressor. Therefore, the defendants were justified in using necessary force to overcome his unlawful resistance and complete the repossession. The defendants would only be liable if they used unnecessary violence, not for using the force required by the plaintiff's own resistance.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the common law 'right of recaption' for chattels, establishing that an owner's right to retake property is not defeated by the fraudulent possessor's resistance. The decision shifts the focus from a strict prohibition on any force to a standard of reasonableness, allowing owners to use necessary force to overcome unlawful resistance. This strengthens the position of property owners against fraudulent actors by permitting a degree of self-help that might otherwise be considered an actionable tort like assault or battery.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Hodgeden v. Hubbard (1846) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Hodgeden v. Hubbard