Held v. White Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Held v. White Co.

243 A.D. 705

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 705 (Held v. White 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

Held v. White Co., 243 A.D. 705 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Action to recover damages by reason of defendant’s sale of the personal property described in the complaint. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the property under a conditional sales agreement, and that after more than fifty per cent of the purchase price had been paid defendant repossessed the property and sold it without notice to plaintiff in violation of section 79 of the Personal Property Law. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. In our opinion, there is a question for trial as to whether the paper executed on April 30, 1931, is a chattel mortgage or a conditional sales agreement. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

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

Action to recover damages by reason of defendant’s sale of the personal property described in the complaint. The plaintiff claimed that he purchased the property under a conditional sales agreement, and that after more than fifty per cent of the purchase price had been paid defendant repossessed the property and sold it without notice to plaintiff in violation of section 79 of the Personal Property Law. Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. In our opinion, there is a question for trial as to whether the paper executed on April 30, 1931, is a chattel mortgage or a conditional sales agreement. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/held-v-white-co-nyappdiv-1935.