Case ID: ill-app_189/html/0380-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice McSurely", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Benjamin Ohnkin, Defendant in Error, v. Solomon Smoler, Plaintiff in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,196.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Henry C. Beitler, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1914.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed November 9, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action of trover brought in the Municipal Court of Chicago by Benjamin Ohnkin against Solomon Smoler for damages for the conversion of personal property. The trial court found for plaintiff and entered judgment against defendant for $22. To reverse the judgment, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.
    The facts as found by the trial court were substantially as follows: Plaintiff, a tailor, had two or three times bought goods from the defendant, a jobber. Defendant claimed that on October 27th, the day in question, plaintiff was indebted to him for goods to the amount of $26.30. On this day plaintiff came into the store and bought some goods, amounting to $22, for which he paid defendant cash. These goods were done up in a bundle and delivered to plaintiff, and the $22 was handed to defendant. The bundle was left for a short time on the counter, while plaintiff looked at other goods, and thereupon the defendant took the bundle, and when plaintiff inquired where his bundle of goods was defendant replied: “Ton owe me enough dollars, and you get out,” at the same time shoving the plaintiff out of the store.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    Trover and conversion, § 39
      
      —when finding as to ownership of goods warranted by the evidence. In an action of trover for goods purchased of a jobber, where the plaintiff claimed that he had paid for the goods and the bundle was delivered to him, and that after he had left it on the counter the defendant took it, and the defendant claimed that the money was paid by plaintiff to apply on an old account, held that a finding that the goods belonged to plaintiff was warranted by the evidence.
    Barnett & Glaskay, for plaintiff in error.
    No appearance for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols, XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.