Douglass v. Hobe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Douglass v. Hobe

55 N.Y.S. 849, 36 A.D. 638

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1899

StatusPublished

This text of 55 N.Y.S. 849 (Douglass v. Hobe) 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

Douglass v. Hobe, 55 N.Y.S. 849, 36 A.D. 638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for conversion. The plaintiff established upon the trial that he had a chattel mortgage upon certain property in a place of business carried on by Mrs. Fenstermaker, the maker of the mortgage, and that the same was given to secure the payment of certain promissory notes. These notes were not paid at maturity, and the mortgagor abandoned the property, and the same came into the possession of the defendant Hobe, who, upon demand [850]*850made upon him, refused to deliver the articles. The undisputed evidence established a case of conversion; but, as the plaintiff gave no evidence of the value of the property, he was only entitled, upon the proof, to nominal damages. To such damages he was entitled, and it was therefore error in the justice to dismiss his complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted in the municipal court.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an action for conversion. The plaintiff established upon the trial that he had a chattel mortgage upon certain property in a place of business carried on by Mrs. Fenstermaker, the maker of the mortgage, and that the same was given to secure the payment of certain promissory notes. These notes were not paid at maturity, and the mortgagor abandoned the property, and the same came into the possession of the defendant Hobe, who, upon demand [850]*850made upon him, refused to deliver the articles. The undisputed evidence established a case of conversion; but, as the plaintiff gave no evidence of the value of the property, he was only entitled, upon the proof, to nominal damages. To such damages he was entitled, and it was therefore error in the justice to dismiss his complaint.

The judgment should be reversed, with costs, and a new trial granted in the municipal court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 N.Y.S. 849, 36 A.D. 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglass-v-hobe-nyappdiv-1899.