Garlick v. Meyers

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Garlick v. Meyers

35 Misc. 805, 72 N.Y.S. 1104

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 805 (Garlick v. Meyers) 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

Garlick v. Meyers, 35 Misc. 805, 72 N.Y.S. 1104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The justice was right in setting aside the verdict. The evidence was clear that the coach in question was allotted to plaintiff in the division of the partnership property; that it was afterwards found in defendant’s possession; that the plaintiff demanded its return and that defendant refused to give it up. These facts established the plaintiff’s right to recover. The defendant offered no evidence to show how he came into possession of the coach, or what claim of right, if any, he had to its possession. It is not important whether the coach was put in plaintiff’s stable or taken away by defendant on the night that the division was made. In either event it belonged to the plaintiff and later was found in defendant’s possession. If he had any right to its possession he should have made the fact to appear.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The justice was right in setting aside the verdict. The evidence was clear that the coach in question was allotted to plaintiff in the division of the partnership property; that it was afterwards found in defendant’s possession; that the plaintiff demanded its return and that defendant refused to give it up. These facts established the plaintiff’s right to recover. The defendant offered no evidence to show how he came into possession of the coach, or what claim of right, if any, he had to its possession. It is not important whether the coach was put in plaintiff’s stable or taken away by defendant on the night that the division was made. In either event it belonged to the plaintiff and later was found in defendant’s possession. If he had any right to its possession he should have made the fact to appear.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 805, 72 N.Y.S. 1104, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garlick-v-meyers-nyappterm-1901.