TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Duryea v. Andrews

Duryea v. Andrews, 12 N.Y.S. 42 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1890)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
December 10, 1890
Judges
Pratt
Citations
12 N.Y.S. 4234 N.Y. St. Rep. 77458 Hun 6071890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3539
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Limitation of Actions—Running of the Statute—Demand. A horse stolen from plaintiff, the owner, came into possession of defendants, who retained it for several years, when plaintiff, on being informed that they had it, demanded it from them. Held, that the statutory limitation did not begin to run against an action by him against them for conversion until such demand; the possession, until the demand, was, in contemplation of law, in plaintiff, as the legal owner.
Summary
Appeal from circuit court, Queens county. Action by Henry T. Duryea against William H. Andrews and George H„ Andrews for conversion of a horse. Defendants pleaded the statute of limitations of six years. It appeared that the horse was stolen from plaintiff in or before the year 1878, and in that year came into defendants’ possession. In 1889, plaintiff learned that defendants had the horse, and made a demand that they turn it over to him; and thereafter brought this action. From a judgment for plaintiff entered on the verdict of a jury, defendants appeal.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Pratt

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Pratt, J.

The judgment in this action must be affirmed. The only defense interposed was that of the statute of limitations, and that statute did not begin to run until the demand for the delivery of the horse in question was made on December 10, 1889. The horse having been stolen, its possession until such demand was, in contemplation of law, in the plaintiff, as he was its legal owner.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1895: 11899: 11981: 11982: 11987: 21990: 118952026peak 1987 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. DeWeerth v. Baldinger836 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1987)
  2. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon536 F. Supp. 829 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)
  3. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon678 F.2d 1150 (2d Cir. 1982)
  4. Halsey v. Hart32 N.Y.S. 665 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1895)
  5. Lawrence v. Meloni163 A.D.2d 827 (1990)
  6. Daniel v. McLucas55 P. 680 (Kan. Ct. App. 1899)

Most recent

  1. Lawrence v. Meloni163 A.D.2d 827 (1990)
  2. Gerda Dorothea Deweerth v. Edith Marks Baldinger v. Wildenstein & Co., Inc.836 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1987)
  3. DeWeerth v. Baldinger836 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1987)
  4. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon678 F.2d 1150 (2d Cir. 1982)
  5. Kunstsammlungen Zu Weimar v. Elicofon536 F. Supp. 829 (E.D.N.Y. 1981)
  6. Daniel v. McLucas55 P. 680 (Kan. Ct. App. 1899)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list