May 28, 1937.
Present — Sears, P.J., Edgcomb, Crosby, Lewis and Taylor, JJ.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: Although most inartistically drawn we find sufficient allegations in the complaint to constitute a cause of action in conversion. All concur. (The order denies defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint in an action in conversion.)
Full title:CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Respondent, v. HARRY A. FOHL, Appellant
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Date published: May 28, 1937
The defendant has even failed to establish lack of notice on the part of its assignor (Eager on Chattel…
Aeroglide Corp. v. Zeh(Rodney Hunt Machine Co. v. Stewart, 57 Hun. 545, 552, 11 N YS. 448, 451 (3rd Dept., 1890).) See also Kominz…