Lawrence v. Packard Motor Car Company of New York

New York Court of Appeals

Lawrence v. Packard Motor Car Company of New York

40 N.E.2d 43, 287 N.Y. 757, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1774

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 22, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 N.E.2d 43 (Lawrence v. Packard Motor Car Company of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. Packard Motor Car Company of New York, 40 N.E.2d 43, 287 N.Y. 757, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1774 (N.Y. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. (See 287 N. Y. 841.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch and Lewis, JJ. Rippey, Conway and Desmond, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: The question of the time when the property in the automobile passed under the bill of sale was a question of the intention of the parties and “ for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties, regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, usages of trade and the circumstances of the case.” (Personal Property Law, § 99 [Cons. Laws, ch. 41].) That was clearly a question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. The dismissal of the complaint constituted error.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion. (See 287 N. Y. 841.)

Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch and Lewis, JJ. Rippey, Conway and Desmond, JJ., dissent in the following memorandum: The question of the time when the property in the automobile passed under the bill of sale was a question of the intention of the parties and “ for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties, regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, usages of trade and the circumstances of the case.” (Personal Property Law, § 99 [Cons. Laws, ch. 41].) That was clearly a question of fact which should have been submitted to the jury. The dismissal of the complaint constituted error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 N.E.2d 43, 287 N.Y. 757, 1942 N.Y. LEXIS 1774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-packard-motor-car-company-of-new-york-ny-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack