King v. Clements

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

King v. Clements

243 A.D. 853

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1935·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Judgment modified on the law and facts by fixing the value of the chattel at $1,334.28 and as modified affirmed, without costs. Finding of fact numbered 4 modified accordingly. Memorandum: We hold that the value of the linotype machine as fixed by the trial court in the sum of $1,800 is contrary to law and contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. The value should be fixed at the amount of plaintiff’s special interest in the property. (See Townsend v. Bargy, 57 N. Y. 665; Allen v. Judson, 71 id. 77; Fowler v. Haynes, 91 id. 346; Brockway Motor Truck Corp. v. Selzer, 235 App. Div. 759.) All concur. (The judgment awards plaintiff possession of a linotype machine or its value.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgment modified on the law and facts by fixing the value of the chattel at $1,334.28 and as modified affirmed, without costs. Finding of fact numbered 4 modified accordingly. Memorandum: We hold that the value of the linotype machine as fixed by the trial court in the sum of $1,800 is contrary to law and contrary to and against the weight of the evidence. The value should be fixed at the amount of plaintiff’s special interest in the property. (See Townsend v. Bargy, 57 N. Y. 665; Allen v. Judson, 71 id. 77; Fowler v. Haynes, 91 id. 346; Brockway Motor Truck Corp. v. Selzer, 235 App. Div. 759.) All concur. (The judgment awards plaintiff possession of a linotype machine or its value.) Present — Sears, P. J., Taylor, Edgcomb, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

King v. Clements, 243 A.D. 853 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

243 A.D. 853 (King v. Clements) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related