
    (174 App. Div. 851)
    INVENTIONS CORP. v. SLEASE et al. (VANOSCOPE CO., Inc., Intervener).
    (No. 8756.)
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 2, 1916.)
    Replevin —Intervention.
    In replevin, where a question is clearly and necessarily involved as to a third party’s title and right to possession of the chattels, he may intervene to assert and protect whatever rights he may have.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Replevin, Cent. Dig. § 123; Dec. Dig. <§=x>23.]
    ©=»For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in ail Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by the Inventions Corporation against Clyde H. Slease and others. The Vanoscope Company, Incorporated, applied for leave to intervene, and, from an order denying its application, it appeals. Reversed in part, and motion granted in part.
    Argued before CLARKE, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, SCOTT, SMITH, and DAVIS, JJ.
    Roderic Wellman, of New York City, for appellant.
    Hector M. Hitchings, of New York City, for respondent Inveiir tians Corp.
   SCOTT, J.

The action is in replevin to recover possession of certain moving picture machines. It clearly appears that there is necessarily involved a question as to the title and right to possession of the Vanoscope Company, the appellant who wishes to intervene, to the chattels affected by the action. In the court" below the appellant asked as well for' an injunction as for an intervention. So far as the motion was for an injunction it was rightly denied, and the appellant now acquiesces in the decision to that extent. We are of the opinion, however, that the appellant is entitled to intervene, in

order that it may assert and protect whatever rights it may have. Rosenberg v. Salomon, 144 N. Y. 92, 38 N. E. 982; Hall v. Garfinkel, 164 App. Div. 931, 149 N. Y. Supp. 1085.

To the extent indicated, the order appealed from is reversed, and the motion granted, without costs. Order filed. All concur.  