34 A.D. 228 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1898
This action was brought against the sheriff of Kings county for the conversion of personal property. Claim of ownership in the plaintiff having been made when the sheriff levied upon the property, he demanded a bond of indemnity which the defendants gave thereupon the sheriff to'ok the property, and this action having been brought against him, the defendants were substituted as parties, defendant. The evidence warranted the jury in finding that the property was not owned by the defendant in .the execution under which the sheriff acted. This would lead to an affirmance of the judgment were it not for the fact that fatal error was committed in rulings upon questions of evidence. The sum which the plaintiff' became entitled to recover was measured by the value of the property converted.
There was also another ruling which presents clear error, assuming that the point was fairly taken. The plaintiff being interrogated about the transaction at his store where the property was seized, Was asked, “ Q. There were customers in there ? ” This was objected to ; the objection was overruled, the defendants excepted, and the wit-mess answered, “Yes.” . Then followed the question, “They saw it being taken by the sheriff ? ” Thereupon the witness proceeded to give testimony showing that he had but a small business and little capital,-and that the removal of this part of the stock practically destroyed his business in the articles taken. There is no objection in the record to this- part of the testimony, unless it be covered by the general objection above noted, and it can be urged with some force that no question was presented by the objection taken. In no view and for no proper purpose could this testimony be received, either that to which specific objection was made or that which followed, and as the objection was taken and the ruling had when this subject was entered upon, the objection should be held to relate to . and embrace the whole. The rulings to which we have adverted were distinctly prejudicial; the first, because it bore directly upon the issue of the value of the property, which was the measure of damage under the issue; the second because its effect was to arouse the animosity of the jury, and prejudice them against the defendants, in consequence of the fact that not only was there a conversion of the property, but that the business of the plaintiff was also ruined, and thereby induce them to enhance the value of. the property converted. There is a wide discrepancy between the property claimed by the plaintiff to have been taken and the property which was inventoried by the sheriff at the time of the seizure. There is also a wide difference
For these. reasons the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event:
All concurred.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event.