Coppola v. Gross
Opinion of the Court
The action was an alleged conversion by the defendant in seizing and disposing of plaintiff’s property under an execution against a third party. The evidence, to our minds, is irresistible that the property of the defendant in the execution was not taken in satisfaction of the judgment. There are, as it appears, two stores upon the premises Eo. 311 West Forty-fifth street, in the city of Eew York, with a hallway between them. The store on one side of this hallway was a dry goods store, owned and carried on by the mother of the plaintiff, and the other a grocery store, carried on by the plaintiff’s stepfather. The transactions which led up to the judgment, on which the execution was issued, were wholly within the grocery store. On the 5th day of June, 1899, the plaintiff bought the dry goods store from
The case, upon all the evidence, was fairly submitted to theo jury, and they appear to have determined all of the issues in the plaintiff’s favor. The execution called for the collection of only forty dollars and thirty-five cents, and it is inconceivable that the defendant should have thought it necessary to carry away a stock of goods amounting to nearly $600, and to have broken up the plaintiff’s business, without first having set upon foot an inquiry that would have led him to a knowledge of the real situation. The charge was eminently fair to the defendant, and we are not inclined to interfere with the determination reached by the jury.
Judgment and order appealed from, therefore, affirmed, with costs.
Fitzsimons, Oh. J., and O’Dwyeb, J., concur.
Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.