Decalcomanie Transfer Ornaments Co. v. Hajim

New York Supreme Court

Decalcomanie Transfer Ornaments Co. v. Hajim

131 Misc. 646, 227 N.Y.S. 647, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 766

DecidedMarch 21, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 131 Misc. 646 (Decalcomanie Transfer Ornaments Co. v. Hajim) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Decalcomanie Transfer Ornaments Co. v. Hajim, 131 Misc. 646, 227 N.Y.S. 647, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 766 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Fbankenthaler, J.

Plaintiff seeks damages on the theory that defendant converted certain chattels which plaintiff’s assignor had delivered to defendant as collateral security for a usurious loan. Although section 377 of the General Business Law permits the borrower to obtain the return of such security without a tender of principal or interest, it is well settled that the same privilege does not extend to an assignee of the borrower. The complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff made any tender of the principal . or interest. It does not even allege that plaintiff’s assignor demanded the return of the chattels and thereafter assigned his rights to the plaintiff. Since plaintiff could not maintain an action for the recovery of the property without a tender, it is difficult to comprehend how it can maintain an action to recover for the withholding of the property in the absence of an offer to repay. The motion to dismiss is accordingly granted. Order signed.

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

Fbankenthaler, J.

Plaintiff seeks damages on the theory that defendant converted certain chattels which plaintiff’s assignor had delivered to defendant as collateral security for a usurious loan. Although section 377 of the General Business Law permits the borrower to obtain the return of such security without a tender of principal or interest, it is well settled that the same privilege does not extend to an assignee of the borrower. The complaint fails to allege that the plaintiff made any tender of the principal . or interest. It does not even allege that plaintiff’s assignor demanded the return of the chattels and thereafter assigned his rights to the plaintiff. Since plaintiff could not maintain an action for the recovery of the property without a tender, it is difficult to comprehend how it can maintain an action to recover for the withholding of the property in the absence of an offer to repay. The motion to dismiss is accordingly granted. Order signed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 Misc. 646, 227 N.Y.S. 647, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/decalcomanie-transfer-ornaments-co-v-hajim-nysupct-1928.