54 Neb. 472 | Neb. | 1898
On December 26, 1891, Morris Alexander, being the owner, and in possession, of a stock of general merchan
Among other alleged errors they complain of the giving of the seventh instruction, which is as follows: “One who is not a general owner of personal property, but claims to own an especial interest therein, cannot main
There is another reason why the mere attachment of the goods did not give plaintiffs a cause "of action for conversion. To maintain that action a party must have actual possession of the property or the light of present possession. A right to take possession at some future day is not sufficient. (Holmes v. Bailey, 16 Neb. 300; Hill v. Campbell Commission Co., 54 Neb. 59; Kennett v. Peters, 54 Kan. 119; Ring v. Neale, 114 Mass., 111; Clark v. Draper, 19 N. H. 419; Cooley, Torts [1st ed.] 445; Raymond v. Miller, 50 Neb. 507.)
Affibmjsd.