G. R. Shepard Engineering & Construction Co. v. Spofford

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

G. R. Shepard Engineering & Construction Co. v. Spofford

96 N.Y.S. 206

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 29, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 96 N.Y.S. 206 (G. R. Shepard Engineering & Construction Co. v. Spofford) 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

G. R. Shepard Engineering & Construction Co. v. Spofford, 96 N.Y.S. 206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The only question in the case is one of fact, upon which there was a conflict of evidence. One Mardorf purchased of the defendant a quantity of tools, machinery, drills, etc., and subsequently sold the property to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the sale did not include a certain tool called a “dividing head.” Pie brought a replevin action against Mardorf, and Mardorf claimed that he had sold the tool to these plaintiffs. The replevin action was subsequently dismissed, leaving the tool in the defendant’s possession, but the ownership in question. "Plaintiff thereupon demanded the tool of the defendant, and upon his refusal brought this ac[207]*207tion. The question at issue was whether the sale from 'defendant to Mardorf included this dividing head or not. The justice found in favor of the plaintiff upon conflicting testimony, and his decision should stand.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The only question in the case is one of fact, upon which there was a conflict of evidence. One Mardorf purchased of the defendant a quantity of tools, machinery, drills, etc., and subsequently sold the property to the plaintiff. The defendant claimed that the sale did not include a certain tool called a “dividing head.” Pie brought a replevin action against Mardorf, and Mardorf claimed that he had sold the tool to these plaintiffs. The replevin action was subsequently dismissed, leaving the tool in the defendant’s possession, but the ownership in question. "Plaintiff thereupon demanded the tool of the defendant, and upon his refusal brought this ac[207]*207tion. The question at issue was whether the sale from 'defendant to Mardorf included this dividing head or not. The justice found in favor of the plaintiff upon conflicting testimony, and his decision should stand.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 N.Y.S. 206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/g-r-shepard-engineering-construction-co-v-spofford-nyappterm-1905.