Edgerton v. Ross
New York Court of Common Pleas
Order to show cause why proceedings of claim and delivery should not be set aside. In February, 1858, Andrew Ross, one of the defendants in this action, commenced, in the Supreme Court, an action against Davis and Bassford, to recover the possession of certain personal property. In that action Ross took proceedings of claim and delivery, under section 206, &c., of the Code. Pursuant to a requisition, the sheriff took the chattels in question.
Read the full summary
Order to show cause why proceedings of claim and delivery should not be set aside. In February, 1858, Andrew Ross, one of the defendants in this action, commenced, in the Supreme Court, an action against Davis and Bassford, to recover the possession of certain personal property. In that action Ross took proceedings of claim and delivery, under section 206, &c., of the Code. Pursuant to a requisition, the sheriff took the chattels in question. While they were in the custody of the sheriff, one Edgerton, claiming to be the true owner, brought this action in the Common Pleas against Boss, the…
1Opinion of the CourtHilton, J.
This action is to recover the possession, and also claiming the delivery by the coroner to the plaintiff, of certain personal property in custody of the sheriff, having been taken by him by virtue of proceedings in an action of a nature similar *191to this, wherein the defendant Ross is plaintiff and Robert Davis, and Edward D. Bassford are defendants.
The sheriff claims no interest in the property; he merely has it in his custody, having taken it from possession of Davis and Bassford, the defendants in the last-named action.
It is a familiar rule, that when a remedy is provided by statute in any…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McCarthy v. . OckermanNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- Haskins v. KellyThe Superior Court of New York City · 1863
- Pelham Hod Elevating Co. v. BaggaleyCity of New York Municipal Court · 1890