
    Adelaide Van Brunt, Respondent, v. Jacob J. Oestreicher, Appellant.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term,
    October, 1899.)
    Conversion — Exercise of exclusive dominion by the defendant not shown.
    A Woman ordered a coat of a tailor and paid for it, assuming that it would fit. It would not fit, and after unsatisfactory alterations she left it with the tailor. She subsequently demanded of him the price paid, but never demanded the coat.
    Held that she had not shown such an exercise, by the tailor, of exclusive dominion over the coat as would support an action against him for conversion.
    Appeal by the defendant from a judgment recovered by the plaintiff in the Municipal Court, second district, borough of Manhattan.
    Marcus Schnitzer, for appellant.'
    John Callahan, for respondent.
   MacLean, J.

Under an oral plea of conversion, the plaintiff testified that she ordered a coat to be made for her by the defendant, a lady’s tailor, that when the garment was sent she was about to leave the city, but supposing that the garment would be as ordered, she paid the price agreed upon; afterwards, discovering that the garment did not fit, she returned it, as she also did again after a failure by the defendant to make it as it should be; then she demanded repayment of the money, which was refused. She never demanded the garment. This evidence was insufficient to sustain an action wherein the plaintiff is required to prove that the defendant exercises dominion over the property in exclusion or in defiance of the owner’s right. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Fbeedmae, P. J., and Leveetbitt, J., concur.

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