Wilson v. . Elwood
New York Court of Appeals
This action originated in a justice’s court, and was tried" in 1854. It was trover, for a quantity of hay. The defendants answered jointly, denying each and every allegation of the complaint, and also justifying under a title in Elwood, under a mortgage from the other defendant, Miller. The plaintiff proved the purchase of the hay on an execution, in his own favor, issued from a court "of a justice "of the peace, against the defendant Miller.
Read the full summary
This action originated in a justice’s court, and was tried" in 1854. It was trover, for a quantity of hay. The defendants answered jointly, denying each and every allegation of the complaint, and also justifying under a title in Elwood, under a mortgage from the other defendant, Miller. The plaintiff proved the purchase of the hay on an execution, in his own favor, issued from a court "of a justice "of the peace, against the defendant Miller. The defendants proved the mortgage given and filed before the levy on the plaintiff’s execution, and gave evidence of the consideration. Evidence was…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
The only question is upon the exclusion of the 'defendant Miller as a witness. By the general denial of the allegations of the complaint, every fact necessary to maintain the action was put in issue by each defendant. The conversion of the property by each defendant, as well as the title of the plaintiff, was to be, proved, and upon failure to connect either with the taking or conversion, the action necessarily failed as to the defendant against whom there was no sufficient evidence. The cause of action was several as well as joint, and one might have been acquitted and the other convicted.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. . RichardsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- Payson v. EverettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1867