
    SMUSCH v. RAVITCH et al.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    December 26, 1900.)
    Action for Conversion—Evidence.
    Where defendant did not exercise dominion over the chattels in question to the exclusion of plaintiff’s right of ownership, an action cannot be maintained for their conversion.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan, Fourth district.
    Action by Benjamin Smusch against Joseph Ravitch and another. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendants appeal.
    Reversed.
    Argued before BEEKMAN, P. J., and GIEGERICH and O’GORMAN, JJ.
    Nicholas Aleinikoff, for appellants.
    Jacob Rieger, fo’r respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The testimony in this case is insufficient to establish a conversion. The defendants did not exercise acts of dominion over the chattels in question, to the exclusion of plaintiff’s rights as owner, and judgment should have been awarded for the defendants.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.  