Court Opinion

ID: 9867431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 16:07:33.428371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:47.191951
License: Public Domain

Rapallo, J.,
concurs ; ¡Miller, J., concurs in result; Andrews, Earl and Danforth, JJ., concur on ground of conversion and subsequent resumption and for nominal damages only; Folger, J., dissents, stating his grounds therefor as follows:
I perceive nothing now in the case which I did not find there when I wrote the opinion reported in 49 ¡New York,—■ I mean nothing upon the main question in the case. As the trier of the facts has now found that there was not a reasonable excuse for the refusal to yield up to the plaintiff his property on his demand, it would follow in accordance with my views then given that there was a conversion and liability of the defendant. It is said that there was a resumption of the property by the plaintiff. ¡Not so. There was a willingness shown by him to resume it; but the defendant never gave it all back to him. I therefore dissent' from the views of the opinion just read by the chief judge.
There is a minor question which was not in the case before ; but as the result reached by the prevailing opinion makes it needless to consider it, I express no view as to it.
Judgment reversed.