Bannwart v. First Bohemian Brewing Co.

New York Court of Common Pleas

Bannwart v. First Bohemian Brewing Co.

8 N.Y.S. 335, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 306, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1578

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedFebruary 3, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 8 N.Y.S. 335 (Bannwart v. First Bohemian Brewing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bannwart v. First Bohemian Brewing Co., 8 N.Y.S. 335, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 306, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1578 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Bookstaver, J.

The action was brought for the claim and delivery of certain personal property claimed by the plaintiff under a chattel mortgage which was past due. As to the chandeliers covered by the mortgage, there is no [336]*336claim whatever that either of the defendants were at any time the owners of them, and consequently the mortgagor, Shulte, had the right to mortgage or sell them, at his pleasure. As to the remainder of the property, the appellant the First Bohemian Brewing Company was at one time the owner. On behalf of plaintiff, it is claimed that the company sold these goods to the mortgagor, Shulte, absolutely, for $500, to be paid in installments of 15 per cent, of Lhe amount of beer sold by Shulte, as the business went on; and a bill is introduced which goes to corroborate this contention. It is true the defendants deny there was any such absolute sale made; but the evidence shows that subsequently Shulte gave them a mortgage upon the same goods, and had it recorded, as he claims, at their request. At any rate the question was one of fact; and, under the well-established rules of this court, the judgment will not be reversed, unless there is a greater preponderance of evidence than appears in this case. All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bookstaver, J.

The action was brought for the claim and delivery of certain personal property claimed by the plaintiff under a chattel mortgage which was past due. As to the chandeliers covered by the mortgage, there is no [336]*336claim whatever that either of the defendants were at any time the owners of them, and consequently the mortgagor, Shulte, had the right to mortgage or sell them, at his pleasure. As to the remainder of the property, the appellant the First Bohemian Brewing Company was at one time the owner. On behalf of plaintiff, it is claimed that the company sold these goods to the mortgagor, Shulte, absolutely, for $500, to be paid in installments of 15 per cent, of Lhe amount of beer sold by Shulte, as the business went on; and a bill is introduced which goes to corroborate this contention. It is true the defendants deny there was any such absolute sale made; but the evidence shows that subsequently Shulte gave them a mortgage upon the same goods, and had it recorded, as he claims, at their request. At any rate the question was one of fact; and, under the well-established rules of this court, the judgment will not be reversed, unless there is a greater preponderance of evidence than appears in this case. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y.S. 335, 29 N.Y. St. Rep. 306, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1578, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bannwart-v-first-bohemian-brewing-co-nyctcompl-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack