Landstrom Realty Corp. v. Lamborn

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Landstrom Realty Corp. v. Lamborn

144 Misc. 701, 259 N.Y.S. 495, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1267

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 3, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 Misc. 701 (Landstrom Realty Corp. v. Lamborn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Landstrom Realty Corp. v. Lamborn, 144 Misc. 701, 259 N.Y.S. 495, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1267 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously modified, upon the law, by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of eleven dollars, and as so modified affirmed, without costs to either party.

While the evidence warranted a finding that the witness Wasserstrom had power to deliver the stock to the defendants for Sale for his own account and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to replevy the same, nevertheless since the action was for replevin the costs were limited by subdivision 11 of section 164 of the New York City Municipal Court Code, to the sum fixed by the plaintiff as the value of the chattel, namely, seventy-five dollars. Moreover, it was error to allow the costs of the minutes on the examination before trial as a disbursement. The language of subdivision 6 of section 170 of the New York City Municipal Court Code is different from that of subdivision 10 of section 1518 of the Civil Practice Act. The case of Harris v. Rogers (106 Misc. 638) is, therefore, not controlling.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously modified, upon the law, by reducing the amount thereof to the sum of eleven dollars, and as so modified affirmed, without costs to either party.

While the evidence warranted a finding that the witness Wasserstrom had power to deliver the stock to the defendants for Sale for his own account and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to replevy the same, nevertheless since the action was for replevin the costs were limited by subdivision 11 of section 164 of the New York City Municipal Court Code, to the sum fixed by the plaintiff as the value of the chattel, namely, seventy-five dollars. Moreover, it was error to allow the costs of the minutes on the examination before trial as a disbursement. The language of subdivision 6 of section 170 of the New York City Municipal Court Code is different from that of subdivision 10 of section 1518 of the Civil Practice Act. The case of Harris v. Rogers (106 Misc. 638) is, therefore, not controlling.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 Misc. 701, 259 N.Y.S. 495, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landstrom-realty-corp-v-lamborn-nyappterm-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack