Rockwell v. Lawrence — 8 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 471

Majority

p. 471

HERVEY ROCKWELL, Respondent, v. ALFRED LAWRENCE, Appellant.

Headnote

Evidence—Admissibility of award to prove ownership of goods, in an action to recover the price of them.

The defendant having bought certain hay of one Seymour, title to the same was claimed by plaintiff. The claims of plaintiff and Seymour were submitted to arbitration, and the title to the hay was awarded to plaintiff. Held,, that the award was properly admitted in evidence, to establish title in the plaintiff, in an action brought by him against the defendant to recover the price of the hay.

p. 472

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the report of a referee.

This action was brought to recover the price of certain hay, sold to the defendant by one Seymour, who worked plaintiff’s farm under an agreement, by which he was to have a certain share of the products. Title to the hay sold, was claimed by the plaintiff, and the claims of Seymour and plaintiff were submitted to arbitration. The arbitrators determined that plaintiff was the owner, and notice of the award was given to the defendant. The action was referred to a referee, who reported in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment was entered upon the report, and the defendant appealed from the same.

Mwndy da Stout, for the respondent.

WilUam F. Purd/y, for the appellant,

The plaintiff and one Seymour made an agreement, by which Seymour agreed to work plaintiff’s farm for one year from ,1st April, 1865. Seymour was to have one-third of the products for his labor, and was to have one-third of the hay which should' be left in the spring of 1866, after leaving as much, and as good hay, as he received from plaintiff at the commencement of the lease. Just before the termination of the year, in March, 1866, Seymour sold the hay to defendant. Plaintiff claimed the hay. Upon this state of facts, plaintiff and Seymour agreed to submit the question to two arbitrators; and these arbitrators determined that Seymour had had all he was entitled to, under the lease or agreement, and that plaintiff was entitled to collect the proceeds of sales, made by Seymour. The defendant was notified of this award. Upon the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, the award as between plaintiff and Seymour. The defendant objected to this award, as not binding him. The evidence was received; and this presents the only question raised on this appeal. I think the evidence was admissible. The plaintiff had proven his title to the hay. It was raised on his farm. Seymour was to have one-third of what remained, after- making good the old hay of the preceding year.

p. 473

If he had produced a bill of sale of the hay from Seymour to him, it would have been evidence of title in plaintiff. The award was offered for the same purpose, and had the same effect. As between plaintiff and Seymour, plaintiff owned the hay. The award conclusively established this as against Seymour, and in favor of plaintiff.' The defendant had no interest in the question of ownership, and could not have been made a party to the arbitration. He was simply to pay the true owner, and the award established that, as to the rival claimants.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present—Barnard, P. J., Taloott and Tapper, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.