Court Opinion

ID: 4930016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-09-24 01:06:10.767819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:14:26.279518
License: Public Domain

Tenney, J.
So far as it regards the right of the plaintiff’s intestate to the property in the house, the principles of the cases of Russell v. Richards & al., 1 Fairf. 429, and 2 Fairf. 311, are applicable to the facts of this case, and he became the proprietor of the house, by the purchase at the officer’s sale on Dec. 15, 1849.
After the purchase, and a demand made therefor upon the defendant, the latter refused to make the delivery; but subsequently entered into a valid contract with John Doughty and James Wells, to sell the same to them. This is sufficient evidence of a conversion by the defendant, and the' action is maintained-

Defendant defaulted.