Hudson River Rail Road v. Lounsberry & Betts
New York Supreme Court
PPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were common carriers and a corporation under the laws of this state, and that the defendants were copartners in business in the city of New York, under the name and firm of John S. Lounsberry & Co. That during the months of January and February, 1854, the plaintiffs, as such common carriers, brought to the city of New York certain large quantities of whisky in barrels, of…
Read the full summary
PPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The complaint alleged that the plaintiffs were common carriers and a corporation under the laws of this state, and that the defendants were copartners in business in the city of New York, under the name and firm of John S. Lounsberry & Co. That during the months of January and February, 1854, the plaintiffs, as such common carriers, brought to the city of New York certain large quantities of whisky in barrels, of different manufactures and marks or brands, and among others, certain barrels for Dows, Gruiteau The answer put in issue…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Clerke, J.
If this may be considered an action of tort, for the conversion of the whisky, I think that the referee was justified in finding for the plaintiffs. The possession of the property by the defendants, and their refusal or neglect to deliver it, after demand, were sufficiently proved.' The plaintiffs having been deprived, involuntarily, of the possession, no matter in what way, are, even as qualified owners, entitled to the restoration of the property, or to its value.
If, on the other hand, this may be considered an action for the value of the property, on an implied…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Beach v. . CookeNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- New York Central Railroad v. MuszalskiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937