Hyperlawhypertext legal database Dubois v. Sistare 13 N.Y.S. 99

← Cases

Dubois v. Sistare

13 N.Y.S. 99 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1891-01-16 English

Decision Majority — Daniels, J. · Concurring — Van Brunt, P. J.,

Contents

Majority

p. 99
Dubois v. Sistare et al.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.
January 16, 1891.)

Headnote

Conversion—Pleading—Answer.
Where an allegation in a complaint that defendants have wrongfully detained and converted to their own use plaintiff’s goods is positively denied by the answer, a material issue is raised, which includes defendants’ liability to personal arrest, and it is error to strike out such answer as frivolous.
Appeal from special term, New York county.
Action by Louis Dubois against William H. M. Sistare and another, for conversion of certain stocks. Defendant Sistare appeals from an order striking out his amended answer as frivolous, and for judgment thereon for plaintiff.
Argued before Van Bbunt, P. J„ and Beady and Daniels, JJ.
Henry 8. Bennett, for appellants. Whitlock & Simonds, (Alexander B. Simonds, of counsel,) for respondent.

The complaint sets forth various dealings between the parties in certain mining stocks, and alleging that the defendants held in their possession, for and belonging to the plaintiff, 6,000 shares of the Little Chief Mining Company, 5,000 shares of the Horn Silver Mining Company, and 1,500 shares of the Iron Silver Mining Company. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had tendered to the defendants the balance due to them from him, and demanded the delivery of the stock; and that they had delivered to him the 6,000 shares of the Little Chief Mining Company stock, but neglected and refused to deliver the remainder. And the averment is then made “that the defendoants have wrongfully detained and converted the same to their own use.” This averment has evidently been made to legally characterize the defendants’ act in neglecting and refusing to deliver the detained shares of stock. It charged a conversion, which before was at most left to mere inference," and may be presumed to have been added to avoid all uncertainty from what had been previously set forth. The object was to implicate the defendants in a positive wrong, for which, if it shall be maintained, they may be personally taken in execution. This was as pointedly denied by the answer which has has been stricken out; for its third subdivision in allegation, that the defendants have wrongfully detained and converted the 5,000 shares of the Horn Silver Mining Company, and the 1,500 shares of the Iron Silver Mining Company, to their own use, has been denied. This denial created a material issue, including the liability of the defendants to personal arrest; and it could not

Concurrence

p. 100
regularly be stricken out, (Bank v. Leland, 50 N. Y. 673 ;) but it should be tried in the ordinary course prescribed for that object. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied.

(concurring.) It senms to me that the fact that the respondent found it necessary to present so elaborate a brief upon this appeal shows conclusively that the answer was not frivolous. 1 concur in the reversal of the order, with costs.

Brady, J., concurs.

Cases cited