Fairfield Junior Corp. v. Standard Platinum Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fairfield Junior Corp. v. Standard Platinum Co.

260 A.D. 935, 23 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5531

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1940

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 935 (Fairfield Junior Corp. v. Standard Platinum Co.) 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

Fairfield Junior Corp. v. Standard Platinum Co., 260 A.D. 935, 23 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for conversion, judgment for plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. The issue here was limited to the question of conversion of the personalty by the defendants on April 5, 1939. Defendants may not obtain possession by artifice and then invoke. article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law as justification for the act. Relief to be afforded, pursuant to section 279 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, must be molded in accordance with the circumstances presented in an action brought by a defrauded creditor or creditors. A judgment restoring the personalty to the possession of the defendants could be predicated only on a demand and refusal as a prerequisite to the maintenance of an action. (Cohen v. Keizer, Inc., 246 App. Div. 277; Employers’ Fire Ins. Co. v. Cotten, 245 N. Y. 102.) In addition, if it be assumed that article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law may be invoked by way of counterclaim, the defendants failed to show insolvency at the time of the transfer, an essential element, the existence of which cannot be implied as there was forbearance on the part of the innocent transferee. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

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

In an action for conversion, judgment for plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. The issue here was limited to the question of conversion of the personalty by the defendants on April 5, 1939. Defendants may not obtain possession by artifice and then invoke. article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law as justification for the act. Relief to be afforded, pursuant to section 279 of the Debtor and Creditor Law, must be molded in accordance with the circumstances presented in an action brought by a defrauded creditor or creditors. A judgment restoring the personalty to the possession of the defendants could be predicated only on a demand and refusal as a prerequisite to the maintenance of an action. (Cohen v. Keizer, Inc., 246 App. Div. 277; Employers’ Fire Ins. Co. v. Cotten, 245 N. Y. 102.) In addition, if it be assumed that article 10 of the Debtor and Creditor Law may be invoked by way of counterclaim, the defendants failed to show insolvency at the time of the transfer, an essential element, the existence of which cannot be implied as there was forbearance on the part of the innocent transferee. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D. 935, 23 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairfield-junior-corp-v-standard-platinum-co-nyappdiv-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack