Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
John S. Simmons et al., Respondents, v. Charles V. Lyons, Appellant, 1874 — 55 N.Y. 671 · caselaw · US
General
John S. Simmons et al., Respondents, v. Charles V. Lyons, Appellant
55 N.Y. 671·New York Court of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
John S. Simmons et al., Respondents, v. Charles V. Lyons, Appellant.
(Submitted December 19, 1873;
decided January 20, 1874.)
This was an action to recover possession of certain personal property. The complaint alleged “that the defendant has become possessed of and wrongfully detains from the plaintiffs the following goods and chattels of the plaintiffs.”
Upon the opening of the case at the trial defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it stated no cause of action; that there was no allegation of ownership or possession or right of possession in plaintiff, or that the property had been wrongfully taken, or had been demanded before suit. Plaintiffs’ counsel thereupon moved to amend by inserting in the complaint, after the words “ possessed of,” the words “ by forcibly taking from the plaintiffs; ” the court granted the motion to amend and denied the motion to dismiss. Held, that the complaint sufficiently alleged ownership (3 Burrill R., 296; PatUson v. Adams, 7 Hill, 126); that the amendment was within the discretion of the court, and could not be reviewed {N. Y. Ice Go. v. N. W. Ins. Go., 23 N. Y., 357); and that, as amended, no allegation of demand was necessary.
Gluts. 8. Spencer for the appellant.
Albert Roberts for the respondents.
[MAJORITY]
Agree to affirm, on opinion of Mohell, J., in court below.
Judgment affirmed.