Anstice v. Holmes
New York Supreme Court
Replevin for taking two mahogany book cases, the property of the plaintiff. Plea, actio non, &c. because they say, that the said goods and chattels in the said declaration mentioned at the said time when &c. were not the property of the said plaintiff in manner and form &c., concluding to the country, and pray ing a return of the goods. Special demurrer and joinder.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, Ch. J.
The plea is bad in form for not showing who owned the goods. The defendants have, in effect, pleaded property in themselves or a stranger, without saying which: or if in a stranger, without saying what one in particular. The plea should have been, that the goods were the property of the defendants, or of some third person, naming him; and not the property of the plaintiff. All the precedents are so. (Wildman v. Norton, 1 Vent. 249 ; Wildman v. North, 2 Lev. 92; Butcher v. Porter, Carth. 243 1 Show. 400; 1 Salk. 94, S. C.; Presgrave v. Saunders, 1 id. 5; 6 Mod. 81;…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rogers v. ArnoldNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Prosser v. WoodwardNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Harrison v. M'IntoshNew York Supreme Court · 1806
3Cited by12 opinions
- Aurora City v. WestSupreme Court of the United States · 1869
- Gould v. Evansville & Crawfordsville R. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Rockwell v. SaundersNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Sexton v. Montgomery County Mutual InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Dixon v. ZadekTexas Supreme Court · 1883
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.