Case ID: nys_72/html/1095-06.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

BORRILL, Appellant, v. BARTON, Respondent.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June, 1901.)
    Action by Albert Borrill against Minnie H. Barton.
    William Henry Knox, for appellant. 6. A. C. Barnett, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

This case was tried with that of Richardson v. Borrill (Sup.) 65 N. Y. Supp. 1144, and upon the same evidence so far as applicable. If the latter case was rightly decided, as we think it was, it is not apparent how this judgment can be sustained. That action was for the replevin of certain goods sold by the defendant here to the plaintiff, and claimed to have been the property of defendant’s daughter. The present action is for two pieces of furniture which was delivered back to defendant. She claims that they were sent back to her on her demand, because not included in the bill of sale. The plaintiff and his wife say that they were sold to defendant at her request. At all events they were within the issues decided in Richardson v. Borrill. The defendant herself testifies: “We got two pieces, and the expressman took them down. One was a tea table, and the other a hat rack. They are in the list demanded in the other action, because we did not separate them.” We think that the judgment in Richardson v. Borrill was decisive of the only question involved in the present action. Judgment reversed, and new mal ordered, with costs to abide the event.