Vanderburgh v. Van Valkenburgh
New York Supreme Court
Demurrer to declaration in an action of replevin. The declaration alledged that the defendants were summoned to answer the plaintiff in a plea of taking and unjustly detaining divers goods and chattels which the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of, and which were thereinafter described and set forth.
Read the full summary
Demurrer to declaration in an action of replevin. The declaration alledged that the defendants were summoned to answer the plaintiff in a plea of taking and unjustly detaining divers goods and chattels which the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of, and which were thereinafter described and set forth. The plaintiff then complained that on, &c. at the town of Athens, on the farm and premises of Conrad Sagar, the defendants took two fields of rye, growing on the ground, and all the manure around the bam on the premises of said Sagar, the property of him the said plaintiff by virtue of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Parker, J.
The declaration in this cause is clearly bad, within the cases of Pattison v. Adams, (7 Hill, 126,) and Bond v. Mitchell, (3 Barb. Sup. Court Rep. 304.) The plaintiff should have alledged that the property replevied was the property of the plaintiff. This should have been done by a direct and issuable averment, and not by allegations of the evidence of such ownership. The facts set forth in the declaration, if proved, would have been proper evidence in support of the allegation of property in the plaintiff. This question has been so recently before this court, in one…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Hunter v. Hudson River Iron & Machine Co.New York Supreme Court · 1855
- More, Reynolds & Co. v. LottNevada Supreme Court · 1878
- Benedict & Burnham Manufacturing Co. v. JonesMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Johnson v. SimpsonIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Gardner v. ScovillNew York Supreme Court · 1882
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.