Herbert v. Humphreys

66 Misc. 150
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedFebruary 15, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 66 Misc. 150 (Herbert v. Humphreys) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Herbert v. Humphreys, 66 Misc. 150 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

Bijur, J.

Defendant, in February, 1903, being in arrears for rent of plaintiff’s piano, purchased it for one hundred dollars payable at the rate of six dollars per month. She made occasional payments on account of this purchase, aggregating twenty-three dollars up to. December, 1903.

All the circumstances surrounding the salé indicate that it was intended to be merely conditional. Costello v. Herbst, 16 Misc. Rep. 687, affd., 18 id. 176; Smith v. Lynes, 5 N. Y. 41.

Section 139 of the Municipal Court Act does not forbid the entertainment of an action in replevin on this contract; because the inhibition is confined to written contracts of conditional sale, and the contract in the case at bar was oral, although a memorandum thereof was signed by the plaintiff.

Seabury and Dehman, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Related

Smith v. . Lynes
5 N.Y. 41 (New York Court of Appeals, 1851)
Costello v. Herbst
16 Misc. 687 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1896)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 Misc. 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herbert-v-humphreys-nyappterm-1910.