Jackson v. Klinger
Opinion of the Court
There was evidence tending to show that the defendant Chapman was the mere agent for others in making the purchase, and that he had no property in or control over the articles in question. Upon this view of the evidence, which we must assume was taken by the trial justice, there was no conversion established against such defendant, and as to him the dismissal of the complaint was right. So far as the defendant Klinger is concerned, we think there is clear evidence of a demand sufficient to sustain a judgment for conversion, assuming that the plaintiffs had established a right of property in the articles in question. This, we think, was done. Said articles were in the house when it was let by the plaintiffs to Mary Braendly, and formed a part of the premises demised. It is claimed that said fixtures were put in by a previous tenant, and an attempt was
Judgment affirmed, with costs, as to the defendant Frank Chapman, and as to the defendant Henry Klinger reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.
Present: Beekmatt, P. J., Giegebich and O’Gormah, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, as to defendant Chapman, and as to defendant Klinger, reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide event.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.