Case Name: Hoffman House, New York, Respondent, v. Rose L. Barkley, Substituted as Defendant in the Place and Stead of the Manhattan Storage and Warehouse Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. (Action No. 2.)
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-09
Citations: 111 A.D. 564
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hoffman House, New York, Respondent, v. Rose L. Barkley, Substituted as Defendant in the Place and Stead of the Manhattan Storage and Warehouse Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. (Action No. 2.)
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 111
Pages: 564–568

Head Matter:
Hoffman House, New York, Respondent, v. Rose L. Barkley, Substituted as Defendant in the Place and Stead of the Manhattan Storage and Warehouse Company, Appellant, Impleaded with Others. (Action No. 2.)
First Department,
March 9, 1906.
Mortgage evidence' insufficient to show that a painting was covered by mortgage" on hotel property.
When it is 3: question-whether a certain painting called “ Love’s Surprise ” by -Scalbert was covered’ by a mortgage executed by the'president of a hotel coi> poratióñ, through the-foreclosure of which the plaintiff claims title, the mere . fact that the schedule of property annexed to said mortgage included a.“ .paintr ing by Scalbert” is not.sufficient,to prove that- “Love’s Surprise” was the painting intended, when, the other evidence shows that said president had been in possession of said painting and treated it-as his private property.
O’Bbien, P, J., and Laughlin, J., dissented, with opinion..
Appeal, by the defendant, ¡Rose L. Barkley, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 31st day of March, 1905, upon the decision, of the court rendered after a • trial at the New York Special Term. -
John J. Kirby, for the appellant.
Albert A. Wray, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.:
The nature of the action is stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Laughlin. We do not concur in his conclusion as-we think the evidence Was not sufficient to justify a finding that this painting, called " Love's Surprise/' ever was the property of C. II. Bead, & Co. or their successors, the Hoffman House corporation. The fact that in .a schedule annexe'd to a mortgage by: the corporation there-was included a painting by Scalbert was not sufficient to justify a finding that this particular painting sued for was ever the property of the plaintiff or of the, corporation to whose rights it succeeded.' The painting is in - the possession of the defendant, and to justify this judgment there must be competent evidence of its ownership by the plaintiff. The evidence shows that Stokes, always treated this painting as his private property ; that it was never in the hotel proper or treated by either the copartnership or its.successor as hotel property.
We think, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide event.
Patterson and Clarke, JJ., concurred; O'Brien, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.