M'Carty v. Vickery
This text of 12 Johns. 348 (M'Carty v. Vickery) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Although it is pretty evident that the plaintiff -below was deceived in the sale of his wood to Fake, yet there is no principle upon which an action of trespass can be sustained against the defendant. The wood had actually been delivered to Fake; the plaintiff was, therefore, devested of the possession, which is necessary to the support of an action of trespass. Had not the plaintiff parted with the possession, the insolvency of the purchaser might have justified a refusal to deliver ; but, by the delivery, the property was changed, and, trespass could not be maintained.
Judgment reversed-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
12 Johns. 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcarty-v-vickery-nysupct-1815.