Rotan v. Fletcher

15 Johns. 207
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 15, 1818·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It appeared from the plaintiff’s own. showing, that the cow in question was taken by virtue of an attachment against Hemmway, and it is fairly to be inferred that the defendant in the court below was aiding and assisting the constable in the execution of the attachment: but independent of this, the evidence on the part of the plaintiff, should have been admitted; the action was trover, and it was competent for the defendant to prove property in a third person. The pretended sale from Mrs. Hemmway did not transfer the property to the plaintiff below. She had no authority to sell the cow ; and, besides, it was offered to be proved, that even this sale was fraudulent. The judgment must, accordingly, be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Rotan v. Fletcher, 15 Johns. 207 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1818).

15 Johns. 207 (Rotan v. Fletcher) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

P. J. Willis & Bro. v. Hudson
63 Tex. 678 (Texas Supreme Court, 1885)