Case Name: ETHEL VOORHEES, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ETHEL CATHERINE THOMAS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1929-06-21
Citations: 7 N.J. Misc. 571
Docket Number: 
Parties: ETHEL VOORHEES, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ETHEL CATHERINE THOMAS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
ETHEL VOORHEES, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ETHEL CATHERINE THOMAS, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. THOMAS THOMAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Submitted May 8, 1029
Decided June 21, 1929.
Before Justices Parker, Black and Bodtne.
For the plaintiff-respondent, Frank J. Baches.
For the defendant-appellant, George Gildea.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This was an action of replevin instituted in the District Court of the city of Trenton. The judgment is assailed on two grounds—first, that there was no proof as to the value of the goods in question, and second, that since the possession of the defendant was not unlawfully taken that there was no proof of a demand for their return having been made. The record does show that there was evidence as to the value of the goods in question, and that a written demand for their return was made before the action was commenced.
The judgment should be affirmed.