Turner v. Cedar

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Turner v. Cedar

91 N.Y.S. 758, 1905 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 583

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 758 (Turner v. Cedar) 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

Turner v. Cedar, 91 N.Y.S. 758, 1905 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

SCOTT, J.

The justice below resolved the question of fact in favor of the plaintiff upon conflicting evidence. With his conclusion we do not feel called upon to disagree. We must therefore conclude that the respondent neither herself sold the dog to the appellant, nor authorized the dealer, Cedar, to do so. It follows that the appellant never came rightfully into possession of the animal, and never acquired either title or right of possession. If it is not made Entirely clear in whose possession the dog actually was immediately before this action was begun, the confusion is caused by circumstances of the appellant’s own making, which were apparently of such a character that, whether possession was alleged in him or in the defendant Jordan, it would be possible to make a colorable claim that possession was really in the other. The truth doubtless is that, if defendant Jordan was in possession, it was for account and as agent for and employé of this defendant. [759]*759If a demand from this appellant was necessary* it was sufficiently made after the proceedings in the magistrate’s court. The remark made by appellant at that time indicated a fixed resolve not to surrender the dog, and rendered a mere formal demand unnecessary. The objection to the amendment of the complaint is untenable. Bunke v. N. Y. Tel. Co. (Sup.) 91 N. Y. Supp. 390,

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

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

SCOTT, J.

The justice below resolved the question of fact in favor of the plaintiff upon conflicting evidence. With his conclusion we do not feel called upon to disagree. We must therefore conclude that the respondent neither herself sold the dog to the appellant, nor authorized the dealer, Cedar, to do so. It follows that the appellant never came rightfully into possession of the animal, and never acquired either title or right of possession. If it is not made Entirely clear in whose possession the dog actually was immediately before this action was begun, the confusion is caused by circumstances of the appellant’s own making, which were apparently of such a character that, whether possession was alleged in him or in the defendant Jordan, it would be possible to make a colorable claim that possession was really in the other. The truth doubtless is that, if defendant Jordan was in possession, it was for account and as agent for and employé of this defendant. [759]*759If a demand from this appellant was necessary* it was sufficiently made after the proceedings in the magistrate’s court. The remark made by appellant at that time indicated a fixed resolve not to surrender the dog, and rendered a mere formal demand unnecessary. The objection to the amendment of the complaint is untenable. Bunke v. N. Y. Tel. Co. (Sup.) 91 N. Y. Supp. 390,

The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 758, 1905 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 583, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-cedar-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack