Heine v. Anderson
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action to recover damages for the wrongful detention by the defendant, of certain articles of clothing, and stuff for clothing, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The answer took issue on all the averments in the complaint.
Read the full summary
This was an action to recover damages for the wrongful detention by the defendant, of certain articles of clothing, and stuff for clothing, alleged to be the property of the plaintiff. The answer took issue on all the averments in the complaint. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Bosworth at the trial term for March, 1853. On the trial, Justus Uhlendorf, a witness on the part of the plaintiff, testified that he was a tailor, and that in December, 1851, he was in partnership with Mr. John Bracks, and that he and his partner kept a clothing store at No. 614 Water street, in the city of New…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
None of the objections to" the plaintiff" recovery are tenable.
The answer denied property in the plaintiff, and as he had never been in the actual possession of the goods, he could only establish Ms title by proving a transfer from the former owner. The bill of sale was therefore properly admitted in evidence, although not set forth in the complaint. In an action of this nature, a general averment of ownership in the complaint is sufficient.
The goods, at the time of the sale, were, in judgment of law, in the possession of the defendant, as the agent or bailee of the former…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Williams v. GraySupreme Court of Missouri · 1866
- Kerner v. BoardmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1891
- Miller v. DeckerNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Berney v. DrexelNew York Supreme Court · 1882
- Welch v. MoffatNew York Supreme Court · 1873
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.