
    Benjamin F. Tyler, Respondent, v. John Young and Henry Klinger, Appellants.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    March, 1905.)
    Replevin — Possession — Defendants’ admissions.
    That defendants in replevin, admit on the trial that at the time of the commencement of the action,' the property in question was stored in their name, justifies an inference that they controlled its possession.
    Where defendants in replevin are in any way concerned in the wrongful sale of the property in question, they are liable even if they had not possession of 'the property.
    Appeal from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York in favor of the plaintiff.
    Joseph Martin (William J. Martin, of counsel), for appellants.
    David C. Myers, for respondent.
   Blanchard, J.

This is an action in replevin. The only point that merits consideration is the contention of the appellants that the plaintiff must prove possession in the defendants at the time of the commencement of the action. One of the defendants admitted on the trial that at that time, the property in question was stored in his name, and it may be inferred that he controlled its possession. At the close of the trial, the defendants’ counsel excepted to so much of the learned court’s charge “ as holds that even if the defendants had no possession of the property, if they were in any way concerned in the wrongful sale of it, they are liable in an action for replevin.”

We think the law as stated by the court is sustained by the case of Nichols v. Michaels, 23 N. Y. 264, and by the more recent case of Sinnott v. Fridock, 165 id. 444.

Judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Scott and O’Gorman, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.  