Case Name: C. Albert Jacob, Respondent, v. Clarence S. Watkins, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1896
Citations: 3 A.D. 422
Docket Number: 
Parties: C. Albert Jacob, Respondent, v. Clarence S. Watkins, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 422–423

Head Matter:
C. Albert Jacob, Respondent, v. Clarence S. Watkins, Appellant.
Sale under execution — when a consignee has no leviable interest in the property. Consigned■—price realized at a public sale is evidence of value.
Where property is consigned, under an agreement that the title thereto shall remain in the consignors until a sale is made by the consignee, the latter has no interest in .the property which can he seized upon ah execution issued upon a judgment against him. . •
'The price which property realizes at a public sale is evidence oí -its, value.
Appeal by the defendant, Clarence S. Watkins, from a judgment of the County Court of Queens county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Queens oii the 2Jth day of December 1895, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court after a trial at the. Queens County Court, and also from an order .entered in said clerk’s office on.the 21st day, of December, 1895, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.'
George Id. Stoddart, for the appellant.
Morris Putnam Stevens, for the respondent. . ■

Opinion:
Per Curiam:
This action is in replevin to recover a piano and damages for its detention, The plaintiff and his co-partñérs consigned -the piano to one .John McCramm for sale on their account, the piano to remain their property until sold by McCramm;, The property was seizedqn an execution against McCramm and sold-to the defendant.
We-think it plain that the deten dent acquired no title to the piano by the execution sale against McCramm.- The ruling -of the trial court in this respect was correct. But the value of the property was to be assessed by the jury. The plaintiff's testimony in that respect was not conclusive. The constable who made the sale, which, of course, was at public auction, testified to the price realized at the sale. Subsequently, on the motion of the plaintiff, this evidence was stricken out. We think this was fatal error. It is settled by authority that the price which property.realizes at a public sale is evidence of its value. (Campbell v. Woodworth, 20 N. Y. 499 ; Gill v. McNamee, 42 id. 44.)
For the error in excluding this evidence, and also in refusing to submit the question of value to the jury, the judgment appealed from must be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
All concurred.
Judgment and order reversed and a new trial granted in the County Court, costs to abide event.