Edwards v. Chapman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edwards v. Chapman

163 A.D. 858, 147 N.Y.S. 218

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

DecidedApril 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D. 858 (Edwards v. Chapman) 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

Edwards v. Chapman, 163 A.D. 858, 147 N.Y.S. 218 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The judgment should be reversed. It was erroneous to permit the jury to infer wrongful possession by the defendant from his allegation of title to the goods in the answer. The finding of conversion is against the weight of the evidence. Nothing came of the arrangement considered by Edwards and M. D. Chapman. Edwards left the hotel and goods in the possession of Coffey, who forthwith conducted the hotel under lease from the Elverton Hotel Company. Privity between defendant and Coffey is not sufficiently shown. The evidence of the value of the goods is given by one who knew nothing of their quality or condition from personal observation or from evidence given on the trial and used hypothetically. But the grounds of objection do not cover such disqualification. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgmentand order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam:

The judgment should be reversed. It was erroneous to permit the jury to infer wrongful possession by the defendant from his allegation of title to the goods in the answer. The finding of conversion is against the weight of the evidence. Nothing came of the arrangement considered by Edwards and M. D. Chapman. Edwards left the hotel and goods in the possession of Coffey, who forthwith conducted the hotel under lease from the Elverton Hotel Company. Privity between defendant and Coffey is not sufficiently shown. The evidence of the value of the goods is given by one who knew nothing of their quality or condition from personal observation or from evidence given on the trial and used hypothetically. But the grounds of objection do not cover such disqualification. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Judgmentand order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D. 858, 147 N.Y.S. 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwards-v-chapman-nyappdiv-1914.