Duryea v. Andrews
12 N.Y.S. 42, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 774, 58 Hun 607, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3539
Opinion
The judgment in this action must be affirmed. The only defense interposed was that of the statute of limitations, and that statute did not begin to run until the demand for the delivery of the horse in question was made on December 10, 1889. The horse having been stolen, its possession until such demand was, in contemplation of law, in the plaintiff, as he was its legal owner.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Duryea v. Andrews, 12 N.Y.S. 42, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 774, 58 Hun 607, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3539 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).
12 N.Y.S. 42 (Duryea v. Andrews) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Lawrence v. Meloni
163 A.D.2d 827 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
DeWeerth v. Baldinger
836 F.2d 103 (Second Circuit, 1987)
Gerda Dorothea Deweerth v. Edith Marks Baldinger, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellant v. Wildenstein & Co., Inc., Third-Party-Defendant-Appellant
836 F.2d 103 (Second Circuit, 1987)
Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon
678 F.2d 1150 (Second Circuit, 1982)
Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon
536 F. Supp. 829 (E.D. New York, 1981)
Daniel v. McLucas
55 P. 680 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1899)
Halsey v. Hart
32 N.Y.S. 665 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)