Swift & Co. v. Cohen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Swift & Co. v. Cohen

256 A.D. 996, 10 N.Y.S.2d 484

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 996 (Swift & Co. v. Cohen) 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

Swift & Co. v. Cohen, 256 A.D. 996, 10 N.Y.S.2d 484 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought by a chattel mortgagee to recover damages for the taking of the mortgaged chattels by defendant, the holder of another chattel mortgage given subsequently to that of the plaintiff’s, order denying plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer and for summary judgment, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Although the defective refiling of plaintiff’s mortgage in 1936 did not render it invalid as to defendant, who took his mortgage with notice of plaintiff’s rights, it does not follow that plaintiff is entitled to money damages because defendant took possession of the fixtures. [997]*997In order to maintain an action for damages, plaintiff must establish that the mortgaged chattels have been placed beyond his reach by the defendant’s act. (Manning v. Monaghan, 23 N. Y. 539; Sani-Porcelain Enamel Products, Inc., v. Bender Store Fixture Co., Inc., 251 App. Div. 726.) There is no proof of such fact in the affidavits submitted. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought by a chattel mortgagee to recover damages for the taking of the mortgaged chattels by defendant, the holder of another chattel mortgage given subsequently to that of the plaintiff’s, order denying plaintiff’s motion to strike out defendant’s answer and for summary judgment, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Although the defective refiling of plaintiff’s mortgage in 1936 did not render it invalid as to defendant, who took his mortgage with notice of plaintiff’s rights, it does not follow that plaintiff is entitled to money damages because defendant took possession of the fixtures. [997]*997In order to maintain an action for damages, plaintiff must establish that the mortgaged chattels have been placed beyond his reach by the defendant’s act. (Manning v. Monaghan, 23 N. Y. 539; Sani-Porcelain Enamel Products, Inc., v. Bender Store Fixture Co., Inc., 251 App. Div. 726.) There is no proof of such fact in the affidavits submitted. Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston, Taylor and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 996, 10 N.Y.S.2d 484, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swift-co-v-cohen-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack