Enggren v. Prinz

New York Supreme Court

Enggren v. Prinz

15 N.Y.S. 477, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 898, 60 Hun 585, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3291

DecidedJuly 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 477 (Enggren v. Prinz) 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

Enggren v. Prinz, 15 N.Y.S. 477, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 898, 60 Hun 585, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3291 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

This is an action for the conversion of a horse. The issue raised by the answer was that the horse -belonged to plaintiff’s husband, and the taking was by execution and levy under a judgment in favor of one Nicholas Ryder. It appeared upon the trial that the husband of plaintiff had executed a chattel mortgage on certain property to his wife, and that this horse was included in it. The wife claimed an independent title, and she never saw the mortgage. It was put on record by her husband without her knowledge. The conversation between the plaintiff and the constable who made the levy was hearsay, but it was wholly immaterial. The constable demanded S50, and the plaintiff said she had nothing to do with her husband's debt. The constable said he would levy, and the plaintiff told him it was her horse. There is nothing presented by the case which calls for a reversal of the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

Barnard, P. J.

This is an action for the conversion of a horse. The issue raised by the answer was that the horse -belonged to plaintiff’s husband, and the taking was by execution and levy under a judgment in favor of one Nicholas Ryder. It appeared upon the trial that the husband of plaintiff had executed a chattel mortgage on certain property to his wife, and that this horse was included in it. The wife claimed an independent title, and she never saw the mortgage. It was put on record by her husband without her knowledge. The conversation between the plaintiff and the constable who made the levy was hearsay, but it was wholly immaterial. The constable demanded S50, and the plaintiff said she had nothing to do with her husband's debt. The constable said he would levy, and the plaintiff told him it was her horse. There is nothing presented by the case which calls for a reversal of the judgment. Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 477, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 898, 60 Hun 585, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/enggren-v-prinz-nysupct-1891.