Buckwalter Stove Co. v. Stratton
Opinion
The evidence is sufficient to warrant a finding that although there was originally an absolute sale of the goods in question by the plaintiff to the defendant Stratton, it'was subsequently agreed between them that the plaintiff should be reinvested with the title thereto, and the defendant Stratton should hold the goods on consignment and remit to the plaintiff the proceeds from the sale thereof. It was, therefore, erroneous to direct a verdict against the plaintiff, since the codofendant Tucker, the trustee in bankruptcy of the defendant, took no greater interest in or better title to the goods than Stratton had, save as.he also represented the creditors of Stratton. Upon that subject the evidence is entirely silent, except as it may be inferred from the fact of bankruptcy upon the part of Stratton. Even if it be assumed that there were creditors represented by the trustee in bankruptcy who could'have attacked the plaintiff's title to the goods upon the ground that there was not such an immediate and actual change in the possession thereof as section 25 of the Personal Property Law
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
118 A.D. 915 (Buckwalter Stove Co. v. Stratton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.