Legal Opinion

Harford v. Stoneham

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 18, 1930PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Per curiam

The essential allegation is actual conversion by Charles A. Stoneham & Company rather than the allegation of a conspiracy to convert by these defendants. Conversion by the Stoneham firm has been proved by the testimony of defendant Robertson and corroborated by plaintiff’s Exhibit 79. This document was properly admitted in evidence. It conforms so closely with Robertson’s description of the recapitulation sheet that the jury was warranted by the evidence in inferring that the two papers were identical. There is, therefore, proof that the agreement between Stoneham & Company and Clarke &…

2Cited by1 opinion

  1. Duncan v. StonehamNew York Court of Appeals · 1930

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

Powered by the Exa API