Hoffman House v. Barkley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman House v. Barkley

111 A.D. 564, 97 N.Y.S. 1095, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 222

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1906

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D. 564 (Hoffman House v. Barkley) 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

Hoffman House v. Barkley, 111 A.D. 564, 97 N.Y.S. 1095, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 222 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinions

Ingraham, J.:

■ The nature of the action is stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Laughlin. We do not concur in his conclusion as-we think the evidence ■ Was not sufficient to justify a finding that this painting, called “ Love’s Surprise/’ ever was the property of C. II. Bead, & Co. or their successors, the Hoffman House corporation. The fact that in .a schedule annexe'd to a mortgage by: the corporation there-was included a painting by Scalbert was not sufficient to justify a finding that this particular painting sued for was ever the property of the plaintiff or of the, corporation to whose rights it succeeded.' The painting is in - the possession of the defendant, and to justify this judgment there must be competent evidence of its ownership by the plaintiff. The evidence shows that Stokes, always treated [565]*565this painting as his private property ; that it was never in the hotel proper or treated by either the copartnership or its.successor as hotel property.

We think, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.

Patterson and Clarke, JJ., concurred; O’Brien, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.

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

Ingraham, J.:

■ The nature of the action is stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Laughlin. We do not concur in his conclusion as-we think the evidence ■ Was not sufficient to justify a finding that this painting, called “ Love’s Surprise/’ ever was the property of C. II. Bead, & Co. or their successors, the Hoffman House corporation. The fact that in .a schedule annexe'd to a mortgage by: the corporation there-was included a painting by Scalbert was not sufficient to justify a finding that this particular painting sued for was ever the property of the plaintiff or of the, corporation to whose rights it succeeded.' The painting is in - the possession of the defendant, and to justify this judgment there must be competent evidence of its ownership by the plaintiff. The evidence shows that Stokes, always treated [565]*565this painting as his private property ; that it was never in the hotel proper or treated by either the copartnership or its.successor as hotel property.

We think, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.

Patterson and Clarke, JJ., concurred; O’Brien, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D. 564, 97 N.Y.S. 1095, 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 222, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-house-v-barkley-nyappdiv-1906.