Burnham v. . Brennan
New York Court of Appeals
This was an action of replevin. Prior to the 10th day of January, 1873, William H. Lane owned the property in controversy, and on that day he sold an undivided half thereof to the plaintiff, Douglass, and on the fifteenth day of January he sold the other undivided half thereof to the plaintiff, Burnham.
Read the full summary
This was an action of replevin. Prior to the 10th day of January, 1873, William H. Lane owned the property in controversy, and on that day he sold an undivided half thereof to the plaintiff, Douglass, and on the fifteenth day of January he sold the other undivided half thereof to the plaintiff, Burnham. Thereafter, in April, one Griggs recovered and docketed a judgment against Lane, and on the fifteenth day of that month an execution was issued upon such judgment and delivered to the defendant as sheriff, who on the same day levied on and seized the property in question. The property was…
1Opinion of the Court
Earl, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur, except Allen, J., absent.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by7 opinions
- Smith v. . KellerNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Lent v. . ShearNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Gick v. . StumpfNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Taylor v. NicholsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909
- Noyes v. MorrisNew York Supreme Court · 1890
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.