Carpenter v. Manhattan Life Insurance

New York Supreme Court

Carpenter v. Manhattan Life Insurance

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 47

DecidedSeptember 15, 1880

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 47 (Carpenter v. Manhattan Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carpenter v. Manhattan Life Insurance, 29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 47 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1880).

Pincite

Opinions

Barnard, P. J.:

This is a hard action. The plaintiff was the owner of some hothouse plants which remained upon defendant’s premises by its assent, and to accommodate the plaintiff. The plaintiff was notified to remove them, and he delayed doing so for a considerable time but when he did endeavor to get them, the defendant refused to •deliver them to the plaintiff. This was on Saturday, May 17,1879. On Monday following, the defendant told the plaintiff he might have the plants,, ' -On Tuesday, May 20, 1879, this suit was commenced. The-'court.chaa'ged the jury that the plaintiff was entitled so recover the difference between the market value of the property on Saturday and on Monday, when they were tendered back. "W e think in this charge the court erred. The conversion was made out by a refusal to deliver the property on Saturday. The plaintiff’s right of action was then complete, and could not be destroyed without his consent. If, after a conversion, the goods are received back, •either before or after suit brought, it goes to mitigate the damages, iS$5?*Eo further. A party whose goods are converted, cannot be forced to receive them back. (Livermore v. Northrup, 44 N. Y., 107; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow., 323.) The judgment should therefore be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.

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

Barnard, P. J.:

This is a hard action. The plaintiff was the owner of some hothouse plants which remained upon defendant’s premises by its assent, and to accommodate the plaintiff. The plaintiff was notified to remove them, and he delayed doing so for a considerable time but when he did endeavor to get them, the defendant refused to •deliver them to the plaintiff. This was on Saturday, May 17,1879. On Monday following, the defendant told the plaintiff he might have the plants,, ' -On Tuesday, May 20, 1879, this suit was commenced. The-'court.chaa'ged the jury that the plaintiff was entitled so recover the difference between the market value of the property on Saturday and on Monday, when they were tendered back. "W e think in this charge the court erred. The conversion was made out by a refusal to deliver the property on Saturday. The plaintiff’s right of action was then complete, and could not be destroyed without his consent. If, after a conversion, the goods are received back, •either before or after suit brought, it goes to mitigate the damages, iS$5?*Eo further. A party whose goods are converted, cannot be forced to receive them back. (Livermore v. Northrup, 44 N. Y., 107; Reynolds v. Shuler, 5 Cow., 323.) The judgment should therefore be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 47, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-manhattan-life-insurance-nysupct-1880.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack