Linnendoll v. Doe & Terhune

14 Johns. 222
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1817·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There is no ground whatever, upon which the plaintiff’s right to the horse, called in the case the spotted horse, can be questioned. None of the rules or principles of law, in relation to the gift of a chattel, are applicable to the case. The mode and manner in which the plaintiff acquired his right excludes any such application. But, admitting this is to be considered as a gift, every thing was done that the law required to vest the property in the plaintiff; he always had the complete and uncontrolled possession, and used and treated the horse as his own.

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

Linnendoll v. Doe & Terhune, 14 Johns. 222 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).

14 Johns. 222 (Linnendoll v. Doe & Terhune) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Horsey v. Knowles
22 A. 1104 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1891)
Sherman v. Slayback
12 N.Y.S. 291 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Shimer v. Mosher
46 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 153 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)
Woods v. Charlton
62 N.H. 649 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1883)
Boylan v. Kelly
36 N.J. Eq. 331 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1882)
Kellogg v. Lovely
8 N.W. 699 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1881)
Herod v. Bartley
15 Ill. 58 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1853)
Bissell v. Huntington
2 N.H. 142 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1819)