Legal Opinion

American Castype Corp. v. Niles-Bement-Pond Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 9, 1941PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBenvenga, J.

Motion to amend extracts of minutes.

It is well settled that the plaintiff in an action for conversion is, as a matter of law, entitled to interest on the value of the property from the time of its conversion (Wilson v. City of Troy, 135 N. Y. 96, 104, 105); and where the jury, in such an action, has failed to add interest to its. verdict, the court may, under certain circumstances, do so at a subsequent date. (Urband v. Lubell, 245 N. Y. 156; Greater N. Y. Coal & Oil Corp. v. P. & R. Coal & Iron Co., 278 id. 270; McLaughlin v. Brincherhoff, 222 App. Div. 458; Demms v. Blanchard, 150 Misc.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Wilson v. . City of TroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  2. Schulte v. Louisville & Nashville R. R.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1908
  3. McLaughlin v. BrinckerhoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  4. Urband v. LubellNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
  5. Demms v. BlanchardNew York Supreme Court · 1934

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rintel v. Dairymen's League Cooperative Ass'nNew York Supreme Court · 1942
  2. d'Hedouville v. Pioneer Hotel Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
  3. Janet M. D'HeDouville v. Pioneer Hotel Company and Pioneer Hotel Properties, Monsanto Company, Janet M. D'HeDouville v. Pioneer Hotel Company and Pioneer Hotel Properties, Monsanto Company, Defendant-Cross-Appellant. Janet M. D'HeDouville v. Pioneer Hotel Company and Pioneer Hotel Properties, Monsanto Company, Janet M. D'HeDouville v. Pioneer Hotel Company and Pioneer Hotel Properties, Monsanto CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API