Nicolls v. Lyons

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Nicolls v. Lyons

144 N.Y.S. 19

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 13, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 144 N.Y.S. 19 (Nicolls v. Lyons) 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

Nicolls v. Lyons, 144 N.Y.S. 19 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

[1] This action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of the body of an automobile. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff proved that he was the owner of the automobile, that the automobile was in the possession of the defendant in the latter’s garage, that he duly demanded its return, and that defendant refused to return it. Proof of these facts established a prima facie case requiring the defendant to make a defense.

[2] The contention of the respondent that, because some of the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff was contradictory, the plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof, cannot be upheld. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendant, the court should have indulged all reasonable inferences in behalf of the plaintiff, and should not have dismissed the complaint.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

[1] This action was brought to recover damages for the conversion of the body of an automobile. The complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff proved that he was the owner of the automobile, that the automobile was in the possession of the defendant in the latter’s garage, that he duly demanded its return, and that defendant refused to return it. Proof of these facts established a prima facie case requiring the defendant to make a defense.

[2] The contention of the respondent that, because some of the testimony offered on behalf of the plaintiff was contradictory, the plaintiff did not sustain the burden of proof, cannot be upheld. In the absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendant, the court should have indulged all reasonable inferences in behalf of the plaintiff, and should not have dismissed the complaint.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 N.Y.S. 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicolls-v-lyons-nyappterm-1913.