Sol #1225 — Singer v. Hill: sewing-machine replevin not a prohibited contract-debt suit

Finding #1225 recovers Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Mary Hill, 60 Hun 347–349 (Fifth Department, 1891). A New York law forbade suits on contracts against Seneca members. Singer used replevin to recover a machine after payment default and refusal to return it.

The court classified the action as arising on the demand and refusal, sounding in tort rather than on the underlying installment contract, and affirmed the company’s possession judgment. The unpaid balance did not become a collectible contract debt.

Printing trap: the headnote says “The vendee then brought an action of replevin,” but the caption and opinion show that the vendor, Singer, commenced it and took the machine under process.

Separations: replevin-on-refusal ≠ contract-debt suit; headnote vendee ≠ actual plaintiff Singer; retained title context ≠ money judgment for balance; court process ≠ adjudicated right to enter dwelling. Source: 1891-singer-hill-seneca-sewing-machine-replevin.

sol1225replevinheadnote