From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tyler v. Young

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1905
46 Misc. 575 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)

Opinion

March, 1905.

Joseph Martin (William J. Martin, of counsel), for appellants.

David C. Myers, for respondent.


This is an action in replevin. The only point that merits consideration is the contention of the appellants 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.


Summaries of

Tyler v. Young

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Mar 1, 1905
46 Misc. 575 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)
Case details for

Tyler v. Young

Case Details

Full title:BENJAMIN F. TYLER, Respondent, v . JOHN YOUNG and HENRY KLINGER, Appellants

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Mar 1, 1905

Citations

46 Misc. 575 (N.Y. App. Term 1905)
92 N.Y.S. 813

Citing Cases

Smith Motor Car Corp. v. Universal Credit Co.

At the trial the defendant contended that no action in replevin could be maintained by the plaintiff where it…