
    William P. McGloin, Respondent, v. George H. Jones, Appellant.
    (New York Common Pleas— Additional General Term,
    February, 1894.)
    In un action to recover possession of a chattel the plaintiff testified, that defendant had in his possession a sewing machine belonging to plaintiff, which he refused to return on demand; that an action had been brought hy defendant against plaintiff in relation to said machine, and a judgment recovered, which he had paid. Defendant put in evidence the judgment roll in the former action, which showed that defendant had purchased said machine of plaintiff and paid therefor, and that the action was for fraudulent representations on said sale. Iield, that the title Of defendant, as shown by his purchase and payment of the price, was not disproved, and that a judgment in favor of plaintiff was erroneous.
    Appeal by tbe defendant from a judgment of the District Court in tbe city of Rew York for tbe fourth judicial district, rendered by tbe justice thereof without a jury.
    Action to recover a chattel. The opinion states the material facts.
    
      Samuel Mullen, for appellant.
    
      Thomas Godey, for respondent.
   Giegerich, J.

This action was brought to recover the possession of a sewing machine. The plaintiff claimed and obtained a judgment for the possession of the same, or, if snch possession he not given, for twenty-eight dollars, its assessed value, hut upon what theory it is difficult to conceive. The oral evidence repeived upon the trial consisted solely of an examination of the plaintiff, and was to the effect that the defendant had in his possession a sewing machine belonging to such plaintiff valued at twenty-eight dollars; that return of the same had been demanded and that the demand had been refused. It further appeared that tíre chattel in question was the same machine with regard to which an action had been brought by this defendant against this plaintiff, and in which action sixteen dollars damages and four dollars costs had been recovered by the plaintiff therein, this defendant.

The plaintiff testified that he had paid such prior judgment and the justice awarded judgment for him herein aá above noticed. The only evidence received for the defendant was the judgment roll and bill of particulars in the former action, and no attempted contradiction of, or objection to, such evidence appears. By this evidence it appears that the defendant had purchased from the plaintiff the machine in question, and had paid for the same the sum of twenty-eight dollars ; that he had found it not "as represented, had offered to return it, the offer was refused and he then brought his action for damages for the alleged false representations, which resulted in the judgment for sixteen dollars before referred to. There is no evidence in support of the plaintiff’s title to the chattel to disprove the title of the defendant, as shown by his evidence of the purchase of the same and payment of the price therefor. The judgment roll in the former action between the parties, received in evidence for the defendant, shows merely that damages were awarded this defendant for false representations, and no mention of any award of the chattel to the present plaintiff appears from that record. That such a judgment transfers the title to the property by its own force is a proposition which cannot be seriously entertained.

The judgment should, therefore, be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs of the appeal to the appellant.

Bischoff, J., concurs.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs of appeal to appellant.  