Storm v. Livingston
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trover. At the trial, the plaintiff proved that he was the owner of a certain horse, which he left in the care of one Tyler; that lie sent a person to demand him of the defendant, who had him in possession; but the defendant being absent from home, the demand was made of the defendant’s wife, and his servant, who .refused to deliver the horse.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trover. At the trial, the plaintiff proved that he was the owner of a certain horse, which he left in the care of one Tyler; that lie sent a person to demand him of the defendant, who had him in possession; but the defendant being absent from home, the demand was made of the defendant’s wife, and his servant, who .refused to deliver the horse. The defendant proved that the horse was taken by a constable, on an execution against one M-Instry, and was sold at public auction by the constable, and purchased by the defendant as the highest bidder. The judgment against…
1Per curiam
The defendant came lawfully by the horse, by the purchase at the constable’s sale. No demand was made of him before the action was commenced, and so there was no conversion. The sale of the horse by the defendant after the suit was brought, cannot avail, as evidence of a conversion. The rights of the parties must be determined as they stood at the commencement of the suit. (3 Johns. Rep. 43. 5 Johns. Rep. 54.)
Judgment of nonsuit.
2Cited by18 opinions
- Morris v. HallSupreme Court of Alabama · 1868
- Field v. SibleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Twinam v. SwartNew York Supreme Court · 1871
- de la Garza v. BoothTexas Supreme Court · 1866
- Hett v. Boston & Maine RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1897
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.