Pelham Hod Elevating Co. v. Baggaley

City of New York Municipal Court

Pelham Hod Elevating Co. v. Baggaley

12 N.Y.S. 218, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 691, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3488

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedDecember 26, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 N.Y.S. 218 (Pelham Hod Elevating Co. v. Baggaley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pelham Hod Elevating Co. v. Baggaley, 12 N.Y.S. 218, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 691, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3488 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, C. J.

The Code has provided a special procedure by which a defendant against whom replevin is instituted may retain the property claimed, (section 1704,) and by which a third person, not a party, may obtain possession of the same under claim of title, (section 1709.) Neither of these methods were resorted to in the present instance, and the plaintiff became entitled to receive and hold possession of the property until the final determination of the action. The defendant was not entitled to an order of interpleader under section 820 of the Code, because he did not tender into court the property claimed. Indeed, he had lost the right of possession, and could not deliver the property. The plaintiff became entitled to possession under the provisions of the Code, and the court could make no different direction concerning it. This view is in accord with the authorities. Edgerton v. Ross, 6 Abb. Pr. 189; Vosburg v. Huntington, 15 Abb. Pr. 254; Lynch v. St. John, 56 How. Pr. 144. Section 820 of the Code must be-construed in harmony with the other sections cited, so that all may have effect, without infringing upon or impairing the purpose of either. It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed, with costs. All concur.

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

McAdam, C. J.

The Code has provided a special procedure by which a defendant against whom replevin is instituted may retain the property claimed, (section 1704,) and by which a third person, not a party, may obtain possession of the same under claim of title, (section 1709.) Neither of these methods were resorted to in the present instance, and the plaintiff became entitled to receive and hold possession of the property until the final determination of the action. The defendant was not entitled to an order of interpleader under section 820 of the Code, because he did not tender into court the property claimed. Indeed, he had lost the right of possession, and could not deliver the property. The plaintiff became entitled to possession under the provisions of the Code, and the court could make no different direction concerning it. This view is in accord with the authorities. Edgerton v. Ross, 6 Abb. Pr. 189; Vosburg v. Huntington, 15 Abb. Pr. 254; Lynch v. St. John, 56 How. Pr. 144. Section 820 of the Code must be-construed in harmony with the other sections cited, so that all may have effect, without infringing upon or impairing the purpose of either. It follows that the order appealed from must be reversed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y.S. 218, 34 N.Y. St. Rep. 691, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pelham-hod-elevating-co-v-baggaley-nynyccityct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack