Grant v. Skinner
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought to recover the value of three shingle machines, and the belting of the same, and the belt to a drag saw, which property had been" sold by the sheriff of Steuben, under and by virtue of an execution in favor of the plaintiffs against E. and H. G. Gulick, and, upon such sale, purchased by the plaintiffs; It was tried at the Rensselaer circuit, in October, 1853, before Mr. Justice Wright.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought to recover the value of three shingle machines, and the belting of the same, and the belt to a drag saw, which property had been" sold by the sheriff of Steuben, under and by virtue of an execution in favor of the plaintiffs against E. and H. G. Gulick, and, upon such sale, purchased by the plaintiffs; It was tried at the Rensselaer circuit, in October, 1853, before Mr. Justice Wright. It appeared upon the trial, that the machines and belting had been purchased by the defendant in the state of Maine, in February, 1852, and that he had paid for them with his own money,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Harris, J.
The defendant went to Maine and purchased the property in question. He paid for it with his own money, and took a bill of purchase in his own name. Upon the face of the transaction, therefore, the defendant was the owner. If, notwithstanding these facts, it was claimed that the defendant made the parchase as the agent of the Gulicks, the question should have been submitted to the jury. There was evidence enough to require such submission, but not enough to warrant *583the court in assuming that the Gulicks, and not the defendant, were the original purchasers.
The parties,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Palmer v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1887