O'Gorman v. Kaplan
New York Supreme Court
Replevin action.
1Opinion of the CourtCropsey, J.
A jury was waived. There is little or no dispute in the evidence. The plaintiff was the owner of certain paintings. He was a British subject, coming to this country on business and td remain indefinitely. He brought or sent the paintings from England to the United States. They arrived and .the steamship company notified the consignee, which was the custom house brokerage firm of G. W. Sheldon & Co. While this firm was the consignee the papers gave the plaintiff’s name and New York address and showed that he was the ultimate consignee. Sheldon & Co. made repeated efforts to get the paintings,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Teal v. FeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Conard v. Pacific Ins. Co. of NYSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Teall v. . FeltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
- Tracey v. . CorseNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Redmond v. American Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- O'Gorman v. KaplanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923