Mitchell v. Gilmour

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mitchell v. Gilmour

256 A.D. 893, 9 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5271

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 11, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 893 (Mitchell v. Gilmour) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell v. Gilmour, 256 A.D. 893, 9 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum:

The time for the passing of title upon a sale depends upon the intention of the parties. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 99.) The conversation between the defendants’ representatives and the former owner of the car and his wife taken in connection with the arrangements as to the other car and the documents signed warrant the finding of the jury that the title had passed to the defendants. As to permission to drive before the accident there was also a question of fact. (Piwowarshi v. Cornwell, 273 N. Y. 226; Jorgensen v. Jaeger, 257 id. 171; Oblando v. Pioneer B. T. Supply Co., 239 id. 342; St. Andrassy v. Mooney, 262 id. 368.) The findings of the jury on these two points are not, in our opinion, against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

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

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Memorandum:

The time for the passing of title upon a sale depends upon the intention of the parties. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 99.) The conversation between the defendants’ representatives and the former owner of the car and his wife taken in connection with the arrangements as to the other car and the documents signed warrant the finding of the jury that the title had passed to the defendants. As to permission to drive before the accident there was also a question of fact. (Piwowarshi v. Cornwell, 273 N. Y. 226; Jorgensen v. Jaeger, 257 id. 171; Oblando v. Pioneer B. T. Supply Co., 239 id. 342; St. Andrassy v. Mooney, 262 id. 368.) The findings of the jury on these two points are not, in our opinion, against the weight of the evidence. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an automobile negligence action. The order denies a motion for a new trial.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 893, 9 N.Y.S.2d 45, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-v-gilmour-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack