Bristol v. Burt
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trover, brought to recover the value of 95 barrels of potashes. The cause was tried at the Onondaga circuit, the 7th June, 1810, before the Chief Justice. The defendant was, in 1808, and still is, the collector of the port of Oswego, on the south side of lake Ontario.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trover, brought to recover the value of 95 barrels of potashes. The cause was tried at the Onondaga circuit, the 7th June, 1810, before the Chief Justice. The defendant was, in 1808, and still is, the collector of the port of Oswego, on the south side of lake Ontario. In May, 1808, the defendant was applied to, to know whether he would grant clearances for ashes for the port of Sackett’s Harbour, which is the next adjoining port in the county of Jefferson, and on the south side of the lake, and adjacent to the province of Canada. The defendant answered that he did and…
1Per curiam
The only point made in this case is, whether there was sufficient evidence of a conversion to justify the verdict.
There were declarations and acts of the defendant united to form a control over the plaintiff’s property. The very denial of goods to him that has a right to demand them, says Lord Holt, in Baldwin v. Cole, (6 Mod. 212.) is a conversion ; for what is a conversion but an assuming upon one’s self the property and right of disposing of another’s goods ? And he that takes upon himself to detain another man’s goods from him without a cause, takes upon hSmse the .right of disposing of…
2Cited by29 opinions
- Pierpoint v. HoytNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- McCormick v. . Pennsylvania Central R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Maxwell v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850
- Schroeppel v. CorningNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Herron v. HughesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.