3 Daly 35 | New York Court of Common Pleas | 1869
By the Court.
The answer is clearly frivolous. The relation of bailor and bailee is admitted; also, the sale of the goods, and the rendition of an account showing the net proceeds in the defendants’ hands belonging to the plaintiff. The non-payment of this amount is sought to be justified by averring title in a third person, one Arnstein, against whom an attachment was issued, which is stated to have been levied upon the goods in question “ and their proceeds ” in the defendants’ hands, and under which, after notice to the plaintiff of the levy, these proceeds were paid by the defendants to the sheriff of this county. There is also another averment, inconsistent, however, with the prior plea, to the effect that these very proceeds were paid to the attorney for the plaintiff in the attachment, “ under and by virtue of an order issued by the Supreme Court.”
This order is not appended, what it really directed is not stated, and no jurisdictional fact is set up. Such an averment is worse than frivolous. It savors of duplicity.
With respect to the other plea, the appellants are fully met by the familiar principle that the bailee cannot, in general dispute the title of his bailor, nor set up a better title in a third person.
The special matter here pleaded wholly fails to bring the case within any of the exceptions to this rule.
The property was not taken by due process of law, nor by title paramount, nor is it charged that it was obtained by felony, force, fraud, or collusion with Arnstein (Bates v. Stenton, 1 Duer, 78, and cases there cited). The due process of law which has been held to exonerate the bailee is that which is set in motion directly against the bailor (Bliven v. The Hudson River R. R. Co., 35 Barb. 191; Burton v. Wilkinson, 18 Verm. R. 186). Here, as between the plaintiff and the defend
The order should be affirmed, with costs.