Ullner v. Doran

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Ullner v. Doran

111 N.Y.S. 1148

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 111 N.Y.S. 1148 (Ullner v. Doran) 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

Ullner v. Doran, 111 N.Y.S. 1148 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff claims that he received an assignment of all the property of one Menger on November 18, 1907. Subsequent thereto an execution was issued to defendant, as a marshal of the city of New York, upon a judgment obtained by a third party against said Menger, and said defendant levied upon the property so claimed by plaintiff, who sues him in the case at bar for a conversion. The justice gave the following decision: “Under the suspicious circumstances surrounding the assignment to the plaintiff, I shall find judgment for the defendant.” This was apparently the only point in the case which the justice considered worthy of notice or took into consideration, and a careful perusal of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that plaintiff’s uncontradicted evidence respecting the assignment to him from Menger made out a prima facie title, and that it was error to find for defendant on the ground indicated. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff claims that he received an assignment of all the property of one Menger on November 18, 1907. Subsequent thereto an execution was issued to defendant, as a marshal of the city of New York, upon a judgment obtained by a third party against said Menger, and said defendant levied upon the property so claimed by plaintiff, who sues him in the case at bar for a conversion. The justice gave the following decision: “Under the suspicious circumstances surrounding the assignment to the plaintiff, I shall find judgment for the defendant.” This was apparently the only point in the case which the justice considered worthy of notice or took into consideration, and a careful perusal of the testimony leads us to the conclusion that plaintiff’s uncontradicted evidence respecting the assignment to him from Menger made out a prima facie title, and that it was error to find for defendant on the ground indicated. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 N.Y.S. 1148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ullner-v-doran-nyappterm-1908.