Case ID: nys_115/html/0126-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

YUDELMAN v. LOUIS.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    March 5, 1909.).
    Landlord and "Tenant ,(§ 269*)—Retention by Landlord of Third Person’s Property for Nonpayment of Rent.
    One loaning articles to another, who placed them for a special purpose on premises rented from a third person, is entitled to their return or their
    " 'value; and the landlord, ignorant of the ownership of the articles, cannot justify a refusal to return them on demand because of nonpayment of rent.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Landlord and Tenant, Cent. Dig. § 1084; Dec. Dig. § 269.]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second'District.
    Action by Morris -Yudelman against Jacob Eouis. From a judgment for defendant, rendered in the Municipal Court, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and DAYTON, JJ.
    Morris A. Rabinovitch, for appellant.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

Action in conversion to recover $150, the alleged value of a scroll and other religious articles loaned by plaintiff to Mr. Potschin, and placed by the latter.in defendant’s premises for. the purpose of ceremonies; Potschin agreeing to pay defendant $150 for the premises during a specified period. Defendant was paid $25 on accqunt, but the ceremonies- did not transpire.

The evidence was problematical as to the actual value of these articles, which had been in use about six yeárs. • Plaintiff testified as to their cost. No market value was shown. A sexton testified that the articles were'“worth”" about' the sums claimed by plaintiff. As to the “scroll” defendant testified:

“It"; lays-there-in-the office; valueless things. - I wouldn’t give $5 for it. Three parties .came for the scroll." - • .

The trial judge found for the. defendant. That the property belonged'to the plaintiff was undisputed; but that defendant did not know that fact-is also undisputed. The evidence justifies the conclusion that demand for the articles was made by plaintiff, and refused, because of the nonpayment of rent, by Potschin. _ Plaintiff is entitled to a return of the articles, or their value at the time of the trial, Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.