## Facts

- In 1867, Freeland owned two store counters that were installed in a shop built by Warner and nailed to the floor.
- On January 2, 1871, Warner mortgaged the premises to De Witt.
- In April 1879, De Witt’s executors foreclosed and sold the premises to Chapin and others.
- In 1881, Freeland took the counters from the plaintiffs’ possession without judicial process.
- The plaintiffs sued in replevin to recover the counters.
- The applicable six-year limitations period for replevin had already run in favor of either Warner or De Witt before the foreclosure sale to the plaintiffs.
- The trial court entered a general finding for Freeland.

## Issues

1. Whether, after the replevin statute of limitations has run against an original owner while the chattel was held by a prior possessor, the owner may later retake the chattel by self-help from a subsequent purchaser in the same jurisdiction.
2. Whether a subsequent purchaser may assert the same limitations bar that would have defeated a direct replevin action by the original owner against the prior possessor.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts set aside the judgment for Freeland and ordered a new trial.
- The court held that when the statute of limitations would bar a direct replevin action by the original owner, the owner cannot accomplish the same result by self-help within the jurisdiction.
- The court held that the limitations protection that had accrued in favor of the prior possessor could be invoked by the subsequent purchaser in possession.

## Legal Principles

- A limitations bar that defeats an original owner’s direct replevin claim within the jurisdiction cannot be avoided by indirect means, including extra-judicial repossession.
- If an owner cannot maintain replevin because limitations has run, the owner has no right to retake the chattel “with his own hand” from a possessor who stands in the prior possessor’s position.
- A successor in possession may assert the same statute-of-limitations defense that would have protected the predecessor possessor against the original owner.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that the trial court erred in allowing an original owner, whose replevin remedy was time-barred as against earlier possessors, to regain the chattel by self-help from a later purchaser in possession; the case was remanded for a new trial under the rule that the accrued limitations bar carries forward to protect successors.


Chapin v. Freeland, 142 Mass. 383, 8 N.E. 128 (1886)