This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1901 Excerpt: ... ditioned to secure the payment of the deht on demand. After the saloon had been surrendered to the landlord, Schwartz called upon him and said he wished to take the goods away. The testimony is conflicting as to whether Schwartz then notified the defendant that he made this demand as owner, or whether he exhibited his bill of sale. Eeldman, the mortgagee, subsequently took possession of so much as remained of the furniture and fixtures covered by his mortgage. This he had a right to do, and the plaintiff is not entitled to a judgment for their return or value. As to the two barrels of beer there is no evidence, and no presumption that they were in the saloon when the bill of sale was made on May thirty-first. If they were not, they did not pass to the plaintiff under the bill of sale. As the saloon had been in active business between May thirty-first and June nineteenth, there is no presumption that the beer, found there on June nineteenth, had been there nineteen days previous. As to the desk, which is all that remains, and apparently all that the appellant really thinks he is entitled to judgment for, the evidence is not satisfactory that the plaintiff made a proper demand upon defendant for it As it came into defendant's possession lawfully, being in the saloon when possession was surrendered by its apparent owner, a proper demand was necessary before an action for conversion would lie. Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgebald, JJ. Judgment affirmed, with costs. William J. Wiersbach, Respondent, v. Delephine Bloch & Sabwa Heidelmeineb, Appellants. Appeal from a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of the city of New York, second district, borough of The Bronx. Nestor A. Alexander, for appellants. Gantz, Neier & McKennell, ..