Kavanagh v. Phelps
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Replevin for three billiard tables in the possession of the defendants; tried in the Superior Court, on the general issue closed to the court, with a claim by tlie defendants for damages for the talcing of the property on the writ, before Cfranger, J. Tlie court found the following facts.
Read the full summary
Replevin for three billiard tables in the possession of the defendants; tried in the Superior Court, on the general issue closed to the court, with a claim by tlie defendants for damages for the talcing of the property on the writ, before Cfranger, J. Tlie court found the following facts. The plaintiffs were manufacturers of billiard tables in the city of New York, and, prior to the transaction hereinafter mentioned between them and Hart & Townsend, were the owners of the tables in question. The defendant Phelps claimed title to the tables by virtue of a mortgage to secure the payment of a…
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
It seems very clear that error cannot be found by us in this case.
The action is replevin under the statute of 1863 for goods unlawfully detained. The plea is a general denial. By the provision of section 344, (Gen. Statutes, pago 79,) the plaintiff under that plea, unless there was a disclaimer of all right to the property b3 the defendant, was bound to prove his title to the property or a right of possession. The defendant did not so disclaim or deny the detention, but on the contrary admitted it, and claimed and offered evidence to prove a title in Phelps, derived from Hart & Townsend. The…
2Cited by1 opinion
- McNamara v. LyonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1897