Quinn v. Parke & Lacy Machinery Co.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Stiles, J.

—The complaint alleged that plaintiff was the owner of certain machinery which the defendant had *137wrongfully taken from his possession, and prayed the return of the property or its value and damages for its detention. The answer opened Avith the general denial, and continued by stating as an affirmative defense that the machinery had been delivered to a firm, Humphrey & Hamilton, June 30, 1890, under a conditional sale agreement in the form of a lease, under the terms of which, upon the happening of certain contingencies, the seller Avas…