Rider v. Union India Rubber Co.
The Superior Court of New York City
The judgment recovered by the plaintiffs in this action having been reversed and a new trial ordered at the February Term, 1859, the action was again brought to trial on the 20th of April, 1859, before Mr. Justice Slossoh and a jury. The pleadings and most of the facts appeared as stated in the former report.
Read the full summary
The judgment recovered by the plaintiffs in this action having been reversed and a new trial ordered at the February Term, 1859, the action was again brought to trial on the 20th of April, 1859, before Mr. Justice Slossoh and a jury. The pleadings and most of the facts appeared as stated in the former report. (4 Bosw., 169.) The plaintiff formally waived any claim to recover the value of the chattels mentioned in the complaint, and sought to recover so much as the use thereof by the defendants was reasonably worth. It was shown that the plaintiffs, at the time the articles went into the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court—Woodruff, J.
It must be deemed established that the defendants did not purchase the articles for the use of which a recovery has been had by the plaintiffs.
That those articles belonged to the plaintiffs, as assignees of Goodyear & Ely, is not controverted. It is not claimed by the defendants that they made any purchase thereof from the plaintiffs. There was no evidence given on the trial that the articles were in fact included in the purchase made by the defendants from Rider & Brothers: on the contrary, the proof is full and uncontradicted that they were not included in that…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Ennis v. Pullman Palace Car Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Deane v. HodgeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Currie v. School-District No. 26Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1886
- Butler v. KirbyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Charter Gas Engine Co. v. CharterAppellate Court of Illinois · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.