Majority
p. 917BEGGS v. EIDLITZ. (Supreme Court, Appellate Term. December 26, 1900.) Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GIEGERICH and O’GORMAN, JJ.
Headnote
Conversion—Ownership op Property.Where goods are -sold under an agreement that the title thereto shall remain in the vendor until the purchase money is paid, a resale by the vendor is not a conversion which will entitle the original vendee to maintain an action therefor.
Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Tenth district.
Action of conversion by John E. Beggs against Charles L. Eidlitz. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, the defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Ernest F. Eidlitz, for appellant.
Charles E. Frances, for respondent.
At the time of the sale of the chattel in question the plaintiff was not the owner thereof, and the facts estab
p. 918
lished upon the trial were therefore insufficient to constitute a conversion. It is substantially undisputed that the title to the chattel was not to pass until the purchase price was paid,' and the defendant, under the circumstances disclosed, acted clearly within his rights. The merits of this controversy seem to be entirely with the defendant, and the judgment for the plaintiff, being without evidence to support it, must be reversed. • •
Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.