Case Name: HOFFMAN HOUSE v. BARKLEY
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-09
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 1095
Docket Number: 
Parties: HOFFMAN HOUSE v. BARKLEY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 1095–1098

Head Matter:
HOFFMAN HOUSE v. BARKLEY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
March 9, 1906.)
1. Replevin—Title—Description in Mortgage—Sufficiency.
In an action to recover possession of an oil painting, known as “Love’s-Surprise,” by Scalbert, plaintiff claimed title as purchaser on foreclosure of a mortgage executed by defendant’s deceased husband as president of the mortgagor. Held, that the fact that in the schedule annexed to the mortgage -there was included a painting by Scalbert was not sufficient to justify a finding that the painting sued for was ever the property of the plaintiff or of the corporation to whose rights it succeeded.
2. Same—Right of Possession—Necessity of Ownership.
In an action to recover personal property in the possession of defendant, plaintiff must show ownership in order to recover.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 42, Cent. Dig. Replevin, §§ 45-68.]
3. Same—Sufficiency of Evidence.
Where, in an action to recover possession of a painting to which plaintiff claimed title by purchase on foreclosure of a mortgage on the fixtures and chattels in a hotel, executed by defendant’s deceased husband as president of the hotel company, the description in the mortgage was not sufficiently definite to include the painting, and it was shown that deceased always treated the painting as his private property and that it was never in the hotel proper or treated by the mortgagor or its grantor as hotel property, plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
O’Brien, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term, New York County.
Action by the Hoffman House against Rose L. Barkley to recover possession, of an oil painting. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before O’BRIEN, P. J., and PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, and CLARKE, JJ.
John J. Kirby, for appellant.
Albert A. Wray, for 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. H. Read & Co. or their successors, the Hoffman House corporation. The fact that in a schedule annexed 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., concur.