Art Education Press, Inc. v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Art Education Press, Inc. v. Smith

252 A.D. 316, 299 N.Y.S. 170, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5651

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 29, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 252 A.D. 316 (Art Education Press, Inc. v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Art Education Press, Inc. v. Smith, 252 A.D. 316, 299 N.Y.S. 170, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5651 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Malley, J.

The defendant, an auctioneer, is sued in conversion for the proceeds of an auction sale conducted by him on [317]*317behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant, in the circumstances, has a hen on the proceeds in his hands for commissions and expenses. (Hone v. Henriquez, 13 Wend. 240; Muller v. Pondir, 55 N. Y. 325, 340, 341; Underhill v. Jordan, 72 App. Div. 71; 7 C. J. S. § 12, Auctions and Auctioneers; 5 Am. Juris., Auctions, § 53.) Conceding the fiduciary relationship claimed by the plaintiffs between them and the defendant, it clearly appears that there has been no adjustment of the account and that there exists an honest dispute between the parties as to the amount due. The defendant alleges a tender of the amount he concedes to be due. An action in conversion, therefore, will not he. (Gunning v. Quinn, 81 Hun, 522; affd., on opinion below, 153 N. Y. 659; Laverty v. Snethen, 68 id. 522, 527.)

We affirm the order on this ground, rather than that upon which the learned justice at Special Term predicated the vacatur.

It follows that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Martin, P. J., Townee y, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

O’Malley, J.

The defendant, an auctioneer, is sued in conversion for the proceeds of an auction sale conducted by him on [317]*317behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant, in the circumstances, has a hen on the proceeds in his hands for commissions and expenses. (Hone v. Henriquez, 13 Wend. 240; Muller v. Pondir, 55 N. Y. 325, 340, 341; Underhill v. Jordan, 72 App. Div. 71; 7 C. J. S. § 12, Auctions and Auctioneers; 5 Am. Juris., Auctions, § 53.) Conceding the fiduciary relationship claimed by the plaintiffs between them and the defendant, it clearly appears that there has been no adjustment of the account and that there exists an honest dispute between the parties as to the amount due. The defendant alleges a tender of the amount he concedes to be due. An action in conversion, therefore, will not he. (Gunning v. Quinn, 81 Hun, 522; affd., on opinion below, 153 N. Y. 659; Laverty v. Snethen, 68 id. 522, 527.)

We affirm the order on this ground, rather than that upon which the learned justice at Special Term predicated the vacatur.

It follows that the order appealed from should be affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements to the respondent.

Martin, P. J., Townee y, Dore and Cohn, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 316, 299 N.Y.S. 170, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/art-education-press-inc-v-smith-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack