Ackerman v. O'Gorman
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from a special term order allowing one of the defendants a bill of costs. This was an action in replevin to recover the possession of a quantity of boots, shoes and rubbers, held by the defendant, O’Gorman, as assignee, under the general assignment of Dennis Murphy, who obtained possession of the goods by virtue of purchases, which the plaintiffs claimed were fraudulent, so that no title passed.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a special term order allowing one of the defendants a bill of costs. This was an action in replevin to recover the possession of a quantity of boots, shoes and rubbers, held by the defendant, O’Gorman, as assignee, under the general assignment of Dennis Murphy, who obtained possession of the goods by virtue of purchases, which the plaintiffs claimed were fraudulent, so that no title passed. Murphy was engaged in business at the city of Oswego and also at Oswego Falls. A part of the goods replevied were found at the Oswego store and a part at the Oswego Falls store. The complaint…
1Opinion of the CourtMerwin, J.
Our decision in this case must be controlled by the decision of the court of appeals in the Newell Universal Mill Co. v. Muxlow (24 N. Y. State Rep. 545). In that case at general term (51 Hun, 453; 20 N. Y. State Rep. 914), it was held that, in an action of replevin, when the plaintiff recovered a portion of the chattels sued for, and the defendant the rest, the defendant was entitled to costs, following the case of Ackerman v. De Lude (36 Hun, 44). The court of appeals reversed the general term, holding that the right to costs in such cases is regulated exclusively by the provisions of…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Goodwin v. . WertheimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Seymour v. BillingsNew York Supreme Court · 1835
- Bull v. KetchumNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Watson v. . GardinerNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Reed v. BattenNew York Supreme Court · 1888
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.