Beck v. Krochinsky

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Beck v. Krochinsky

104 N.Y.S. 1122

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 16, 1907

StatusPublished

This text of 104 N.Y.S. 1122 (Beck v. Krochinsky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beck v. Krochinsky, 104 N.Y.S. 1122 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to recover possession of 43 overcoats, the materials for which were left by plaintiff with defendant to be made up. The defendant was to receive $1 each for making. The marshal replevied 12 coats, and the value of each coat was proven to be $4. The action was originally commenced against “John Krochinsky, name ‘John’ being fictitious, real name unknown to plaintiff, and John Doe.” On the trial the attorney for defendant consented that the names of all the partners be inserted in the papers, viz., Michael Krochinsky, Barnet Krochinsky, and Louis Bleyer. The judgment should be modified, so as to provide a direction for the return of the property after payment to the defendant of the sum of $43, and, in case a return cannot be had, then for the value of the chattels not returned, to wit, $124, less the sum of $43, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Cooper v. Kipp, 52 App. Div. 250, 65 N. Y. Supp. 379.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action to recover possession of 43 overcoats, the materials for which were left by plaintiff with defendant to be made up. The defendant was to receive $1 each for making. The marshal replevied 12 coats, and the value of each coat was proven to be $4. The action was originally commenced against “John Krochinsky, name ‘John’ being fictitious, real name unknown to plaintiff, and John Doe.” On the trial the attorney for defendant consented that the names of all the partners be inserted in the papers, viz., Michael Krochinsky, Barnet Krochinsky, and Louis Bleyer. The judgment should be modified, so as to provide a direction for the return of the property after payment to the defendant of the sum of $43, and, in case a return cannot be had, then for the value of the chattels not returned, to wit, $124, less the sum of $43, and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Cooper v. Kipp, 52 App. Div. 250, 65 N. Y. Supp. 379.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

104 N.Y.S. 1122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-krochinsky-nyappterm-1907.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack