Herzog's Cloak & Suit Co. v. Fedorko
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from the Hudson Circuit. The plaintiff had entrusted certain cloths and linings to one Weiner to be made into ladies’ suits and returned to the plaintiff. The title to the material, it is said, was to remain in the plaintiff, and Weiner was to be paid for his work. The defendant, Fedorko, a constable, seized the goods by virtue of writ's of attachment against Weiner out of the Bayonne District Court.
Read the full summary
On appeal from the Hudson Circuit. The plaintiff had entrusted certain cloths and linings to one Weiner to be made into ladies’ suits and returned to the plaintiff. The title to the material, it is said, was to remain in the plaintiff, and Weiner was to be paid for his work. The defendant, Fedorko, a constable, seized the goods by virtue of writ's of attachment against Weiner out of the Bayonne District Court. The plaintiff brought this suit in replevin against Weiner and the constable. Weiner is not shown by the record to have been summoned, to have appeared or answered. The constable…
1Opinion of the Court
*35The opinion of the court was delivered by
Swayze, J.
If the constable's possession was lawfully obtained, a demand was necessary. He claimed by virtue of writs against Weiner and clearly he had the right by virtue of those writs to levy on any interest Weiner might have in the property. Whether a mere bailee has an interest in the bailment which is subject to levy is sometimes a question of nicety, as may be seen by comparing Dean v. Whitaker, 1 C. & P. 347; 11 E. C. L. 411, with Arnold v. Hatch, 177 U. S. 276. In the present case we think the bailee’s interest was sufficient to be subject to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hopkins v. BishopMichigan Supreme Court · 1892
- Arnold v. HatchSupreme Court of the United States · 1900