Lustbader v. George A. Fuller Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lustbader v. George A. Fuller Co.

90 N.Y.S. 297

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 10, 1904

StatusPublished

This text of 90 N.Y.S. 297 (Lustbader v. George A. Fuller Co.) 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

Lustbader v. George A. Fuller Co., 90 N.Y.S. 297 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff claims ownership of certain vault lights or covers and ashhouses, and asserts that the defendant converted or destroyed them. The case was decided in favor of the defendant, the trial judge writing an opinion setting forth his grounds for rendering the judgment that he did. Without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of his views or otherwise, we are satisfied from an examination of the record that the plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof cast upon him of showing that Smith, who, it is conceded, was the owner of the premises in which the vault lights, etc., were situated, ever transferred them to the^ plaintiff. The plaintiff claims ownership by reason of an oral gift or transfer of the property to him from Smith. Smith positively denies this. This denial, taken in connection with the testimony of defendant’s four witnesses to the effect that the plaintiff, when he asserted that he had finished his contract, which covered the removal of these very vault covers and hoists, made no claim thereto, gives the clear weight of evidence in favor of the contention of the defendant that plaintiff had no right to the property for the conversion or destruction of which this action was brought.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff claims ownership of certain vault lights or covers and ashhouses, and asserts that the defendant converted or destroyed them. The case was decided in favor of the defendant, the trial judge writing an opinion setting forth his grounds for rendering the judgment that he did. Without expressing any opinion as to the correctness of his views or otherwise, we are satisfied from an examination of the record that the plaintiff failed to sustain the burden of proof cast upon him of showing that Smith, who, it is conceded, was the owner of the premises in which the vault lights, etc., were situated, ever transferred them to the^ plaintiff. The plaintiff claims ownership by reason of an oral gift or transfer of the property to him from Smith. Smith positively denies this. This denial, taken in connection with the testimony of defendant’s four witnesses to the effect that the plaintiff, when he asserted that he had finished his contract, which covered the removal of these very vault covers and hoists, made no claim thereto, gives the clear weight of evidence in favor of the contention of the defendant that plaintiff had no right to the property for the conversion or destruction of which this action was brought.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 N.Y.S. 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lustbader-v-george-a-fuller-co-nyappterm-1904.