Case Name: Lathers v. Hunt
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-04-06
Citations: 13 N.Y.S. 813
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lathers v. Hunt.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 13
Pages: 813–814

Head Matter:
Lathers v. Hunt.
(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.
April 6, 1891.)
1. Satisfaction of Chattel Mortgage.
The fact that a landlord, holding a mortgage on household furniture of his tenant as security for rent, takes possession of the furniture on its abandonment by the tenant, and cares for it, does not operate as a satisfaction of the mortgage debt.
3. Landlord and Tenant—Abandonment of Personalty—Liability of Landlord.
The tenant is not entitled to damages against the landlord for injury to the furniture, under such circumstances, without proof sufficient in law to fix such liability upon the landlord.
Appeal from eleventh district court.
Action by Richard Lathers against Jacob H. Hunt for rent. Defendant, to secure payment of the rent, had executed to plaintiff a chattel mortgage on certain furniture in the demised premises. On defendant removing from the premises, and abandoning the furniture, plaintiff took possession of and took care of it. Defendant’s answer set up that he was discharged thereby from all obligation for the rent, and also set up a counter-claim for damages suffered by reason of plaintiff’s taking and using the furniture. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant. See former reports, (9 N. Y. Supo. 494, and 10 N. Y. Supp. 529.)
Argued before Daly, C. J., and Bischoff and Peyob, JJ.
Joseph Walmsley, for appellant. ' Fernando Solinger, for respondent.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Twice has this case been here on appeals by the defendant, and it is again before us on substantially the same state of facts. On the former occasions the law of the case was clearly "and fully propounded for the guidance of the court below; by Bisohoff and Daly, JJ., 9 N. Y. Supp. 494, and by Bookstaver, J., 10 N. Y. Supp. 529. At the trial under review the only development, if any, to vary the case was evidence of alleged injury to the furniture; but we are of opinion that such evidence was insufficient in law to fix the plaintiff with liability. Judgment reversed, and new trial, costs to abide the event.