Spoor v. Holland & Harlow

8 Wend. 445
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1832
StatusPublished
Cited by23 cases

This text of 8 Wend. 445 (Spoor v. Holland & Harlow) 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.

Bluebook
Spoor v. Holland & Harlow, 8 Wend. 445 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1832).

Opinion

By the Court, Nelson J.

The judge decided correctly, that it was not incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce the judgments on which the executions had issued, under which he acted. 6 Johns. R. 195. 7 id. 32. It is objected that the evidence of the plaintiff’s declarations was inadmissible to shew a levy upon the 16,000 brick. The endorsement on the execution merely stated a levy upon a quantity of brick, the joint property of the defendants, without specifying the place where they were found. The brick belonged to the defendants, and were subject to the execution,' and the officer once offered them for sale, but postponed the sale for want of bidders. The officer might have amended his endorsement of levy so as to have identified the brick, which he should have done. Strictly, the declarations were perhaps inadmissible ; but I think there was sufficient evidence to authorize a jury to find the levy, independent of the declarations of the plaintiff

The joint taking of one parcel of brick was sufficiently proved, and we are bound to presume the jury found only'for that parcel, as the verdict is against both defendants. The judge erred in directing the jury to find for the plaintiff the value of the brick converted by the defendants to their use. He could recover only the amount of the executions. The verdict must be reduced to that sum. The judgment should be entered for $81,30.

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

Related

Bradley Land & Lumber Co. v. Eastern Manufacturing Co.
71 A. 710 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1908)
Hundley v. Calloway
31 S.E. 937 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1898)
Warren v. Kelley
15 A. 49 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1888)
Newell v. Clark
46 N.J.L. 363 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1884)
Irions v. Keystone Manufacturing Co.
16 N.W. 349 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1883)
Thacher v. Moors
134 Mass. 156 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1883)
White v. Allen
133 Mass. 423 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1882)
Jones v. Hicks
52 Miss. 682 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1876)
Clearwater v. Brill
11 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 728 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Vaughan v. Warnell
28 Tex. 119 (Texas Supreme Court, 1866)
Chamberlain v. Neale
91 Mass. 410 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1864)
Chadwick v. Lamb
29 Barb. 518 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)
Ullman v. Barnard
73 Mass. 554 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1856)
Seaman v. Luce
23 Barb. 240 (New York Supreme Court, 1856)
Cutter v. Fanning
2 Iowa 580 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1856)
Outcalt v. Durling
25 N.J.L. 443 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1856)
Russell v. . Allen
13 N.Y. 173 (New York Court of Appeals, 1855)
Bassett v. Salisbury Manufacturing Co.
28 N.H. 438 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1854)
Benjamin v. Stremple
13 Ill. 466 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1851)
Brownell v. Hawkins
4 Barb. 491 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
8 Wend. 445, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spoor-v-holland-harlow-nysupct-1832.