¶1The 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.
12 N.Y.S. 42
Duryea v. Andrews
Decided December 10, 1890
New York Supreme Court · decided 1890-12-10
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.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1987
1 federal appellate ·
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1890-12-10
View the full empirical analysis of this case →