Tyler v. Young

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Tyler v. Young

46 Misc. 575, 92 N.Y.S. 818

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1905

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 Misc. 575 (Tyler v. Young) 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

Tyler v. Young, 46 Misc. 575, 92 N.Y.S. 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

Blanchard, J.

This is an action in replevin. The only point that merits consideration is the contention of the ap[576]*576pellants that the plaintiff must prove possession in the defendants at the time of the commencement of the action. One of the defendants admitted on the trial that at that time, the property in question was stored in his name, and it may be inferred that he controlled its possession. At the close of the trial, the defendants’ counsel excepted to so much of the learned court’s charge “ as holds that even if the defendants had no possession of the property, if they were in any way concerned in the wrongful sale of it, they are liable in an action for replevin.”

We think the law as stated by the court is sustained by the case of Nichols v. Michaels, 23 N. Y. 264, and by the more recent case of Sinnott v. Fridock, 165 id. 444.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Scott and O’Gorman, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Blanchard, J.

This is an action in replevin. The only point that merits consideration is the contention of the ap[576]*576pellants that the plaintiff must prove possession in the defendants at the time of the commencement of the action. One of the defendants admitted on the trial that at that time, the property in question was stored in his name, and it may be inferred that he controlled its possession. At the close of the trial, the defendants’ counsel excepted to so much of the learned court’s charge “ as holds that even if the defendants had no possession of the property, if they were in any way concerned in the wrongful sale of it, they are liable in an action for replevin.”

We think the law as stated by the court is sustained by the case of Nichols v. Michaels, 23 N. Y. 264, and by the more recent case of Sinnott v. Fridock, 165 id. 444.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Scott and O’Gorman, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Misc. 575, 92 N.Y.S. 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tyler-v-young-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack