D owned a Hudson seal fur coat which needed certain alterations and repairs, such as to be made longer, more ample in girth, and new lining and a new collar. Her husband engaged Mellon, a furrier, to do the work and furnish the materials needed for $50. The husband represented that the owner of the coat was a customer by the name of Mrs. Sbroe. Mellon and his brother made efforts to deliver the coat and get the money for their work. D found fault with the way the alterations were made. Mellon took the coat to D's home for the fourth time and requested payment. D tried the coat on, thought it was too long, and stated she desired to go back in her apartment where there was a long mirror to see how it looked. D went back but returned without the coat, and refused either the return of the coat or the money. The police were called, and D refused to tell what she had done with the coat. The apartment was searched, but the coat was not found there. The jury could well conclude that from the start D and her husband planned to obtain the work and labor on the coat and repossess it without paying. D was convicted and appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.