Dietz v. Dietz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Dietz v. Dietz

135 N.Y.S. 1075

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 21, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 135 N.Y.S. 1075 (Dietz v. Dietz) 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

Dietz v. Dietz, 135 N.Y.S. 1075 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

This is an action by a wife against her husband to recover the value of two diamonds alleged to have been converted by the defendant. Whether the diamonds were the property of the plaintiff or defendant was the subject of dispute. The plaintiff testified that she owned the diamonds, and that her husband wished to loan one Schaffer $100, and asked her to pawn the diamonds for that purpose. She says that she “raised Cain,” and “after he got through fighting with me he asked me to go down and pawn them for him, which I done. I couldn’t help myself, and I done it.” Not only was there an absence of evidence as to the value of the diamonds, but the facts proved did not establish a cause of action for conversion.

Judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed, without costs to either party. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

This is an action by a wife against her husband to recover the value of two diamonds alleged to have been converted by the defendant. Whether the diamonds were the property of the plaintiff or defendant was the subject of dispute. The plaintiff testified that she owned the diamonds, and that her husband wished to loan one Schaffer $100, and asked her to pawn the diamonds for that purpose. She says that she “raised Cain,” and “after he got through fighting with me he asked me to go down and pawn them for him, which I done. I couldn’t help myself, and I done it.” Not only was there an absence of evidence as to the value of the diamonds, but the facts proved did not establish a cause of action for conversion.

Judgment reversed, and complaint dismissed, without costs to either party. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 N.Y.S. 1075, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dietz-v-dietz-nyappterm-1912.