Glas v. Salhoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glas v. Salhoff

236 A.D. 123, 258 N.Y.S. 984, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5904

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

DecidedJune 29, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 123 (Glas v. Salhoff) 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

Glas v. Salhoff, 236 A.D. 123, 258 N.Y.S. 984, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5904 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is testimony in the case from which the jury might have found that the defendant owned the building; likewise there is testimony from which the jury could have found that plaintiff owned it. Instead of submitting this question to the jury, the learned trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff and sent the question of damages only to the jury. This was error. The court evidently labored under the erroneous impression that ownership of the building rested in the plaintiff as matter of law. The record discloses that both plaintiff and defendant regarded the buildings as personal property and they produced testimony in support of their respective claims of ownership solely on that theory. The solution of the question of ownership depends on the credibility of the witnesses and is on this record a matter for a jury to determine. (Joy v. Diefendorf, 130 N. Y. 6; Hoberg v. Sofranscy, 217 App. Div. 546, 550; Brown v. James, 2 id. 105, 108.)

The judgment should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur.

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

Per Curiam.

There is testimony in the case from which the jury might have found that the defendant owned the building; likewise there is testimony from which the jury could have found that plaintiff owned it. Instead of submitting this question to the jury, the learned trial court directed a verdict for the plaintiff and sent the question of damages only to the jury. This was error. The court evidently labored under the erroneous impression that ownership of the building rested in the plaintiff as matter of law. The record discloses that both plaintiff and defendant regarded the buildings as personal property and they produced testimony in support of their respective claims of ownership solely on that theory. The solution of the question of ownership depends on the credibility of the witnesses and is on this record a matter for a jury to determine. (Joy v. Diefendorf, 130 N. Y. 6; Hoberg v. Sofranscy, 217 App. Div. 546, 550; Brown v. James, 2 id. 105, 108.)

The judgment should be reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur.

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 123, 258 N.Y.S. 984, 1932 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5904, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glas-v-salhoff-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack