Case ID: ny-super-ct_43/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Freedman, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

HELMUTH KRANICH, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JOHN REYNOLDS, Defendant and Respondent.
    
      Decided, February 4, 1878.
    Questions Involved.
    1. Whether" the evidence was such as to call for a reversal.
    2. Whether the referee was bound to find upon the evidence credited by him as an additional fact that the sale alleged in the answer to have been made to the defendant, was in fact made to defendant’s wife.
    3. Whether the bare fact that notwithstanding the allegations in the answer, the defendant and his wife, in certain parts of their testimony given at the trial, treated the sale as having been made to the wife, was of such controlling importance as to call on the referee to discredit their whole testimony.
    Before Curtis, Ch. J., Sedgwick, and Freedman, JJ.
    The action was for the wrongful detention of a piano. By his answer defendant claimed title by virtue of a sale to him by plaintiffs.
    The issues were tried by a referee.
    On the trial, the plaintiffs proceeded on the theory that the sale was to defendant, but void by reason of his fraud.
    The referee, on conflicting evidence, found for defendant.
    From the judgment entered on his report plaintiffs appealed.
    
      Schatz & Salmon, attorneys, and F. G. Salmon, of counsel, for appellants.
    
      M. C. Milnor, attorney, and of counsel, for respondent.
   Freedman, J.,

wrote for affirmance, holding: As to the first question in the head-note that it was not; as to the second, that he was not bound to make such finding; and as to the third, that such fact was not of such controlling importance as to call on the referee to discredit the evidence.

Curtis, Ch. J., and Sedgwick, J., concurred.