Masur v. Freyn

Indiana Court of Appeals

Masur v. Freyn

156 N.E. 164, 86 Ind. App. 73, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 56

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 20, 1927

DocketNo. 12,840.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 N.E. 164 (Masur v. Freyn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Masur v. Freyn, 156 N.E. 164, 86 Ind. App. 73, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 56 (Ind. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Enloe, J. —

This was an action commenced by the appellant to recover damages on account of the alleged conversion of personal property, by the appellee, of which property the appellant claimed to be the owner. The complaint was met by an answer in denial and the issues thus formed were submitted to the court for trial, and resulted in a finding and. judgment in favor of the appellee. The motion for a new trial upon the grounds that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that it was contrary to law, having been overruled, this appeal followed.

Under the issues in this case the burden was upon the appellant to establish to the satisfaction of the court by a fair preponderance of the evidence: (a) That he was the owner of the property in question at the time of the alleged conversion (Gerard v. Jones, Admr. [1881], 78 Ind. 378; 8 Wait, Actions and Defenses 1199). And, also ; (b). the wrongful conversion of said property by the appellee, and its value at such time.

The trial court having seen the witnesses and heard them testify, concluded that this burden, at least as to the ownership of said property, had not been discharged, and we, upon the record before us, cannot say, as a matter of law, that the trial court erred.

Affirmed.

Dausman, J., absent.

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

Enloe, J. —

This was an action commenced by the appellant to recover damages on account of the alleged conversion of personal property, by the appellee, of which property the appellant claimed to be the owner. The complaint was met by an answer in denial and the issues thus formed were submitted to the court for trial, and resulted in a finding and. judgment in favor of the appellee. The motion for a new trial upon the grounds that the decision of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, and that it was contrary to law, having been overruled, this appeal followed.

Under the issues in this case the burden was upon the appellant to establish to the satisfaction of the court by a fair preponderance of the evidence: (a) That he was the owner of the property in question at the time of the alleged conversion (Gerard v. Jones, Admr. [1881], 78 Ind. 378; 8 Wait, Actions and Defenses 1199). And, also ; (b). the wrongful conversion of said property by the appellee, and its value at such time.

The trial court having seen the witnesses and heard them testify, concluded that this burden, at least as to the ownership of said property, had not been discharged, and we, upon the record before us, cannot say, as a matter of law, that the trial court erred.

Affirmed.

Dausman, J., absent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 N.E. 164, 86 Ind. App. 73, 1927 Ind. App. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masur-v-freyn-indctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack