Schwab v. Oatman
New York Supreme Court
Action of replevin.
1Opinion of the Court
Giegerich, J,
The plaintiffs, claiming title to forty-one bales of cotton duck cloth, have brought an action in replevin against the defendants, who, as warehousemen, were in possession of the same. The plaintiffs purchased the goods in question, together with others, from a corporation known as the James Freeman Brown Company, which acted as selling agents for various cotton mills. The contract took the form of a letter or memorandum, dated March 28, 1903, signed by the company just named and reading as follows: “From James Freeman Brown Co. Mill selling agents. Original. Our No. 1251. New…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Saltus & Saltus v. EverettNew York Supreme Court · 1838
- Barnard v. . CampbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- First National Bank of Toledo v. ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Bailey v. . Hudson River R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Soltau v. . GerdauNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Bank v. Almira Farmers Warehouse Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1923
- San Angelo Wine & Spirits Corp. v. South End Warehouse Co.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1936
- James Talcott, Inc. v. Stagg Warehousing & Distributing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1964