From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MAHR v. LIVINGSTONE

Supreme Court, New York Trial Term
Jun 1, 1907
55 Misc. 133 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1907)

Opinion

June, 1907.

A. Thain, for plaintiff.

Wesselman Kraus, for defendant.


Replevin is essentially a possessory action, and it is requisite for the maintenance thereof that the defendant should be in possession or control of the chattels sued for at the time the action is commenced, except where the same have been wrongfully disposed of. Sinnott v. Feiock, 165 N.Y. 444; Wheeler v. Allen, 51 id. 37, 42; Christie v. Corbett, 34 How. Pr. 19; Alaske Untersteutzung Verein v. Wall, 28 Misc. 174. It is undisputed that at the time that this action was commenced the chattel sought to be recovered was not in the possession or control of defendant, but on the contrary that the same was in the actual possession of plaintiff. Under these circumstances the complaint must be dismissed upon the merits.

Complaint dismissed upon the merits.


Summaries of

MAHR v. LIVINGSTONE

Supreme Court, New York Trial Term
Jun 1, 1907
55 Misc. 133 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1907)
Case details for

MAHR v. LIVINGSTONE

Case Details

Full title:CAROLINE S. MAHR, Plaintiff, v . WILLIAM H. LIVINGSTONE, Defendant

Court:Supreme Court, New York Trial Term

Date published: Jun 1, 1907

Citations

55 Misc. 133 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1907)
106 N.Y.S. 308

Citing Cases

Jawitz v. Reitman

When the plaintiff has such possession, there is no basis for the action. ( Sinnott v. Feiock, 165 N.Y. 444,…