Case Name: FIERRO v. SCHNURMACHER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1905-06-26
Citations: 94 N.Y.S. 365
Docket Number: 
Parties: FIERRO v. SCHNURMACHER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 94
Pages: 365–366

Head Matter:
FIERRO v. SCHNURMACHER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 26, 1905.)
Conversion—Chattel Mortgages—Foreclosure—Question for Jury.
In an action for conversion of a horse and wagon sold by a marshal under a chattel mortgage which plaintiff, the owner of the horse, had never signed, evidence held to require submission to the jury of the question whether the marshal, in making the sale, was acting under the orders of defendant or another.
MacLean, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Luvigia Fierro against Markus Schnurmacher. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before SCOTT, P. J., and MacLEAN and DUGRO, JJ.
Osborne & Hess, for appellant.
Palmieri & Wechsler, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, P. J.
The only question that could under any circumstances merit consideration upon this appeal is.whether or not the verdict is against the weight of evidence, for clearly the learned justice was right in refusing to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiff's horse and wagon were sold under a chattel mortgage which she had never signed. Some one, therefore, was guilty of a conversion ; and the only question in the case is whether the marshal who made the sale was acting under the instructions of the defendant or of his brother, one .Lipp Schnurmacher. Concededly E was the defendant who sold the horse and wagon to plaintiff's husband, as security for the price of which the mortgage was given. Defendant now says that the horse he sold belonged to his brother, but he does not say that he mentioned that fact at the time of sale. The mortgage was made to Lipp Schnurmacher. He was not produced as-a witness at the trial. The fact that he was named as mortgagee, and the other fact that the auctioneer paid him the money realized upon the marshal's sale, are not conclusive that it was he who instructed the marshal to make the sale. Two witnesses-who were called.know who instructed the marshal to make the sale. They are the defendant and the marshal. If Lipp Schnurmacher had directed the marshal to sell the property, it would have been easy for them to have said so. But neither of them did say so, and the defendant does not deny that he gave the instruction. The question at issue was clearly and fairly presented to the jury, and we should not, in my opinion, disturb the verdict.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
DUGRO, J., concurs.