Hyperlawhypertext legal database Hays v. Israel 156 N.Y.S. 1126

← Cases

Hays v. Israel

156 N.Y.S. 1126 Court N.Y. App. Term Decision date 1916-01-07 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — FINCH, J.

Contents
p. 1126
HAYS v. ISRAEL et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
January 7, 1916.)

Headnote

Appeal from Municipal Court; Borough of Manhattan, Ninth District. Action by Fannie Pauline Hays against David Israel and others. Prom a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, without opinion.

I dissent, on the ground that the furniture was leased to the Wilsonia Operating Company, which is now out of business and has been practically dissolved. The defendants do not retain the furniture through assignment or transfer of the corporation’s right to it. They took possession of it when the corporation was dispossessed, and have no right to it as against the true owner. I think, therefore, that the judgment should be reversed.