Case ID: nys_99/html/0425-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CLINCH, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MERRIAM v. JOHNSON.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 1, 1906.)
    Replevin—Proof of Fraud—Necessity.
    In replevin, proof of the allegations of the complaint that defendant had disposed of the chattels so that they could not be found or taken by the sheriff, and with the intent that the same should not be so found, and to deprive plaintiff of the benefit thereof, is unnecessary.
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    ■ Action by Louise J. Merriam against Davis S. Johnson. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, DAVIS, and CLINCH, JJ.
    Francis B. Chedsey, for -appellant.
    Wise & Lichtenstein (S. K. Lichtenstein and W. F. Ashley, Jr., of counsel), for respondent.
   CLINCH, J.

The action was in replevin to recover possession of a dog, or its value in case a delivery could not be had. The defense urged on the trial was that the dog had died. The evidence was conflicting, and there is not such a preponderance of proof as to the dog’s death as to warrant interference with the jury's verdict. The defendant claims that the plaintiff must fail in this action because she did not prove the allegations of the complaint that the dog had been removed or disposed of so that it could not be found or taken by the sheriff, and with the intent that it should not be so found or taken, and to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit thereof. The evidence fails to sustain those allegations of the complaint, and, if the defendant were right in his contention, the judgment would have to be reversed. It has been held, however, that such allegations "are merely a condition precedent to the right to arrest the defendant, and that they have nothing to do with a cause of action where the allegations of fraud are unnecessary, as in the case at bar. McGuire v. Bausher, 52 App. Div. 276, 65 N. Y. Supp. 382.

As there is sufficient evidence to sustain the action as one for the recovery of a chattel, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur.