Case Name: Amy C. Kelly, Respondent, v. Louis Mesier and D. W. Hibbard, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897
Citations: 18 A.D. 329
Docket Number: 
Parties: Amy C. Kelly, Respondent, v. Louis Mesier and D. W. Hibbard, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 18
Pages: 329–331

Head Matter:
Amy C. Kelly, Respondent, v. Louis Mesier and D. W. Hibbard, Appellants.
Sale of personal property — sufficient delivery and change of possession as against the vendor’s creditors.
A transfer of the stock in trade of a stonecutter to his sister, in payment for two of his notes held by the sister, and the continuation of the business by the sister, who notifies dealers of the transfer and of her sole interest in the business, pays its running expenses and appoints her brother as manager on a salary, constitutes a sufficient delivery of the property and change of possession to support the-title of the sister and to enable her to maintain an action, against indemnitors of a sheriff, to recover the value of a monument, embraced within such stock in trade, which the sheriff has seized at the instance of the brother’s creditors and sold under execution.
Appeal by the defendants, Louis Mesier and another, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens on the 26th day of October, 1896, upon the report of a referee. •
William L. Mathot, for the appellants.
Charles Benner, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Goodrich, P. J.:
On February 9, 1893, Gautier and Pearson obtained a judgment against .Michael E. Kelly for $242.70. Under an execution issued upon this judgment, the sheriff of Queens county sold a stone monu ment belonging to Kelly, before which sale, the plaintiff, Kelly's sister, served upon the sheriff a notice claiming ownership of the monument, whereupon the defendants executed a bond of indemnity to the sheriff. This action was commenced against the sheriff to recover the value of the monument, the appellants being afteiwards substituted as defendants- upon their own motion. The plaintiff claims that she became the owner of the monument under a bill of sale from her brother Michael, dated October 4, 1892, and that the consideration of this bill of sale, which also conveyed all the other stock in trade of Michael, who had been engaged in the business of stonecutting, was two notes of Michael's, one for $2,000, dated July 20,1892, payable in -forty-eight days, the other for $467, dated August 8, 1892, payable in thirty days.
There is evidence tending to show that Michael, at the time of this transfer, was indebted to the plaintiff for advances made to him in his business; that she had property of her own inherited from her father; that the transfer "of the property was made to pay that indebtedness ; that.after the "transfer the plaintiff took possession of the property and business; that she notified dealers of the transfer, appointed .her brother as the manager on a salary,; opened a bank account and paid the. expenses of the business, and that no one except herself was interested in the business after that time. This constitutes a sufficient delivery of the property and change of possession to support the title of the plaintiff.
The appellants also contend that there is no sufficient evidence of the value of the monument sold by the sheriff and its identity with. the one mentioned in the bill of sale. There is testimony sufficient to support the decision of the referee on both questions. The plaintiff and another witness, who was in the stonecutting business, testified that the value- was $500. It- is true that the price realized at the sheriff's sale was Only $242, but this fact must be taken in consideration with the other evidence as to valne, and there is no reason to disturb the referee's decision upon that question. The amount of the bid at the sheriff's sale was simply to realize the amount of the execution, and this bid cannot control the other positive testimony as to the value of the monument. I also hold that the evidence sufficiently established the identity of the monument.-
I have carefully examined the exceptions taken by the appellants, but do not find any of them of sufficient importance to justify a reversal.
The judgment should be affirmed.
All concurred..
Judgment affirmed, with costs.