Burghen v. Purdy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burghen v. Purdy

50 N.Y.S. 546

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 26, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 N.Y.S. 546 (Burghen v. Purdy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burghen v. Purdy, 50 N.Y.S. 546 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

HARDIN, P. J.

We think the evidence was sufficient to require the court to submit to the jury the question whether the defendants were acting in concert in seizing the property of the plaintiff, and removing the same from his rooms. The evidence tended strongly to indicate a concert of action between the two defendants, and we think sufficient was given to warrant the jury in finding that the acts of Dulmage were authorized by the defendant Purdy, and that the defendant Purdy subsequently, after learning of the acts of the defendant Dulmage, approved and ratified the same. When the question was raised as to his residence, there was a conflict of evidence sufficient to make it a question of fact for the jury to determine whether or not he resided in the county of Erie at the time of the commencement of the action. We think the exceptions present error, and that the nonsuit should be set aside.

Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

HARDIN, P. J.

We think the evidence was sufficient to require the court to submit to the jury the question whether the defendants were acting in concert in seizing the property of the plaintiff, and removing the same from his rooms. The evidence tended strongly to indicate a concert of action between the two defendants, and we think sufficient was given to warrant the jury in finding that the acts of Dulmage were authorized by the defendant Purdy, and that the defendant Purdy subsequently, after learning of the acts of the defendant Dulmage, approved and ratified the same. When the question was raised as to his residence, there was a conflict of evidence sufficient to make it a question of fact for the jury to determine whether or not he resided in the county of Erie at the time of the commencement of the action. We think the exceptions present error, and that the nonsuit should be set aside.

Judgment and order reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 N.Y.S. 546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burghen-v-purdy-nyappdiv-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack