Clark v. . Griffith
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of Hew York. The action was for the conversion of one billiard-table, with. the balls, cues, and counters, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of the city of Hew York. The action was for the conversion of one billiard-table, with. the balls, cues, and counters, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The defendants justified under a chattel mortgage; and the facts were as follows: , " ■ ' ■ ■ - ■ On the 25th August, 1855, the defendants sold to a certain Dean & Finnegan four billiard-tables and apparatus, for $1,100; •for the payment of which, they took from the purchasers eleven promissory notes of $100 each. One of them was made by a surety,-and the other ten by the purchasers, and these were…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The bill of sale, or receipt, of the 14th of January. 1856, gave to the plaintiff’s assignors, Dean & Finnegan, an absolute title to one of the four billiard-tables. These .tables had been previously delivered to Dean & Finnegan and were then in their possession. The property, the right of possession, and the actual possession, were thus united in Dean & Finnegan, and the purchase-money for one of the tables was fully paid. Nothing remained but to designate, select, or ascertain their particular table out of the four, to complete the sale. Until this was done, the vendees could not claim…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Chapman v. . New Haven Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
3Cited by8 opinions
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HartIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
- Newton v. HoweWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Channon v. LuskNew York Supreme Court · 1870
- Kingman v. HolmquistSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887
- George v. McGovernWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.