New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1863-12-02
SUPERIOR COURT.


Calvin Huntington sgi. Charles Douglas, q. al
Heard GENERAL Term OctObcr 1919 before Mosckxp HOB
gprsos and MoRRELL. J. ]. decided Nov II, 1913.
The ac,irn WIS TO recover damages for the con
veroD Of crsn goods alleged In The eonpss TO have be"i
" converted by the defendants 10 tli-ir own use
The defendants by their answer. denied the PLAINTIFF own
erhp Of tue property they aso denied any conversion there
III. plaintiff reed In evidence agreement follow:
INSURED N MAHSrr is.. Co, n. " June n. 1901.
We the gn~d have sod 10 Calvin huntington and
delivered pet invoice rendered this date ~ t9 80 tool
and m-ich.ndi,r for the sum Of slIJ cab psd 70 ro
huntington debu due him rom lho Douglass "Anu'ac''
The sloe:.d good. are all stored In thu norhe.t eide o.
he upper basement Of the store now oceap,.u ., Iiap
ngou and held subject To bic order, any Pof'lon o. "
sy Dsg psy monthly ri IN the good. him
1e rrocred the goods and above tho so.,s an
70 CIV" hssn e 's 90 il' b Hays' o. ''"
oil h "Iani ilss' bpUI6LasS, THU5 DOUGLASS
,oad p.n,o".S IN Ii. foregoing agreement the beading to
gbrb was Mr. Calvin HUNTINGTON bought o. Inor 49,,
Douglas Then follows the items Of goods amounting ~ '"'
hear. date on the day the ssreemsH'
aee7''' THOS. DOUGLASS.
The, va; no o,hsi asp n.n%en. .bve referred and
these being separate and placed by hrm-e
ds ia ~. S..em-nt Of which the goods had been placed
m. foods demanded Of tho defendant Cnsf' "''s
T ~S sedn. prove i. he good: i aus'SS. 1
belonged Ams. and that the plaintiff s"s% ' ". =, de
Of the defendant. by the PLAINTIFF Ame: .t. e , spr
lions Of tho DESCENDANTS took Po-..s-on oil N. lr"Pey
moved il from the defendants pr,me, In' s,"'' WV
GUIDED by the Judge and the defendants eiesIeu' A. ,u
There wa. conflicting evidence to tho deisey o' VIC %
N .nls to The piAinh, the defendant testy'hs
t,t Hoom TO HON tho Paper Delivered n ho ssen',
H. ,aluta was not deliver until Tie money was p.'o
aud that the money had not been PAID Ah'' "s' 'o"H
by both Bottom aud the paitin a.. ,,.,,,A
THE attendants also Offered to prove ts before ,ne Psu
the goods. portion OF them had been 'ske a"a 10
,ov.d by the sheriff under attachment ashst Anes
evidence excluded by the Judge and the defendants
excepted. II, -. st...,J . v.,,,,, n,
, plaintiff leaving them the damages from tho es
Acne. b, fore them To this the defendants excepted
from the Judgment entered upon the verdict tie defendants
appealed to The General Term . -
Ihouas Nelson and Sylvester Lsy Tor spp-isn"i y. a
Nichols for respondent. =,
nv the Court Mcneil Jnstice was error to exclude tho
evidence offered by the deendsn that al the time Oh the sale
Am.s the Of the property IN questioni ao uiA
subsequently, and before the demand, he took possession aii
removed II from the defendants premises aud control
The demand and refusal upon which alone ,e pAn rested
proof Of conversion Irimd Jdee esi'nrr merely sbi
could be repealed by proof that compliance WIN te demand
was impossible. (keisey GriswoId, Barb ~ 1s I'M
We Covi Cones r. il2; Whiting W. slsuson. ~ Id z'S
Anderson Cbnttuek, s! Id. 30 go,
Tho offer was show that q the date Of the bill Of SALE
Ames the Of the property, that The pun3 INV