Koland v. Van Aken

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Koland v. Van Aken

248 A.D. 918, 290 N.Y.S. 768, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8072

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 918 (Koland v. Van Aken) 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

Koland v. Van Aken, 248 A.D. 918, 290 N.Y.S. 768, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought to recover damages for wrongful seizure of personal property under an alleged execution, issued upon an alleged judgment in a Justice’s Court in the town of Wawarsing, Ulster county, judgment entered in favor of the defendant after a trial before the court without a jury, pursuant to stipulation, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The record fails to disclose evidence sufficient to justify the seizure of the property by the defendant. In this action the defendant constable, in order to protect himself, must show that there was a judgment upon which was issued an execution under which defendant seized the property. (Jansen v. Acker, 23 Wend. 480; High v. Wilson, 2 Johns. 45; McCune v. Peters, 54 Misc. 165.) If it be shown that the execution is lost, secondary evidence of its contents and issuance may be offered. The entry of the judgment may be shown by the justice’s record. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought to recover damages for wrongful seizure of personal property under an alleged execution, issued upon an alleged judgment in a Justice’s Court in the town of Wawarsing, Ulster county, judgment entered in favor of the defendant after a trial before the court without a jury, pursuant to stipulation, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The record fails to disclose evidence sufficient to justify the seizure of the property by the defendant. In this action the defendant constable, in order to protect himself, must show that there was a judgment upon which was issued an execution under which defendant seized the property. (Jansen v. Acker, 23 Wend. 480; High v. Wilson, 2 Johns. 45; McCune v. Peters, 54 Misc. 165.) If it be shown that the execution is lost, secondary evidence of its contents and issuance may be offered. The entry of the judgment may be shown by the justice’s record. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 918, 290 N.Y.S. 768, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/koland-v-van-aken-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack