Inventions Corp. v. Slease

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Inventions Corp. v. Slease

159 N.Y.S. 548, 174 A.D. 851, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6616

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

DecidedJune 2, 1916

DocketNo. 8756

StatusPublished

This text of 159 N.Y.S. 548 (Inventions Corp. v. Slease) 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

Inventions Corp. v. Slease, 159 N.Y.S. 548, 174 A.D. 851, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

The action is in replevin to recover possession of certain moving picture machines. It clearly appears that there is necessarily involved a question as to the title and right to possession of the Vanoscope Company, the appellant who wishes to intervene, to the chattels affected by the action. In the court" below the appellant asked as well for' an injunction as for an intervention. So far as the motion was for an injunction it was rightly denied, and the appellant now acquiesces in the decision to that extent. We are of the opinion, however, that the appellant is entitled to intervene, in

[549]*549order that it may assert and protect whatever rights it may have. Rosenberg v. Salomon, 144 N. Y. 92, 38 N. E. 982; Hall v. Garfinkel, 164 App. Div. 931, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1085.

To the extent indicated, the order appealed from is reversed, and the motion granted, without costs. Order filed. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

The action is in replevin to recover possession of certain moving picture machines. It clearly appears that there is necessarily involved a question as to the title and right to possession of the Vanoscope Company, the appellant who wishes to intervene, to the chattels affected by the action. In the court" below the appellant asked as well for' an injunction as for an intervention. So far as the motion was for an injunction it was rightly denied, and the appellant now acquiesces in the decision to that extent. We are of the opinion, however, that the appellant is entitled to intervene, in

[549]*549order that it may assert and protect whatever rights it may have. Rosenberg v. Salomon, 144 N. Y. 92, 38 N. E. 982; Hall v. Garfinkel, 164 App. Div. 931, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1085.

To the extent indicated, the order appealed from is reversed, and the motion granted, without costs. Order filed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.Y.S. 548, 174 A.D. 851, 1916 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/inventions-corp-v-slease-nyappdiv-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack