Legal Opinion

Demarco v. Pickett Motor Sales, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided June 30, 1931PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

While the County Court in affirming the. judgment in this case seems to have treated it as one for conversion, the judgment, however, cannot be sustained as a recovery for a tort because of the absence of a demand. (MacDonnell v. Buffalo L., T. & S. D. Co., 193 N. Y. 92.) The complaint, however, stated facts constituting a cause of action in contract. There is testimony showing that defendant received and sold plaintiff’s automobile under an agreement between it and the plaintiff whereby it was to sell the plaintiff’s car, receive the proceeds to and for the use of the plaintiff. In such case…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. MacDonnell v. Buffalo Loan, Trust & Safe Deposit Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1908
  2. Segelken v. . MeyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  3. Wood v. . YoungNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  4. Lange v. SchileAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Riley v. First National Bank of BinghamtonNew York Supreme Court · 1934

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API