Union Furniture Co. v. Goetz

67 F.2d 201, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4402
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
DecidedSeptember 23, 1933
DocketNo. 4907
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 67 F.2d 201 (Union Furniture Co. v. Goetz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Union Furniture Co. v. Goetz, 67 F.2d 201, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4402 (7th Cir. 1933).

Opinion

WILKEBSON, District Judge.

The appeal is from an order denying appellant’s petition for reclamation of eertain furniture from appellee. The right to reclaim is asserted under a contract set out below.1

[202]*202The Wayside Stores, party to the eontraet of June 12, 1930, was a partnership. Bankrupt, which was incorporated on June 30, 1930, continued to receive furniture shipped under the contract. The eontraet was not filed for record until October 7, 1932, and the petition in bankruptcy was filed on October 22,1932.

Appellant claims that the eontraet is one of consignment. The referee held that the eontraet was one of conditional sale not filed as required by the law of Wisconsin, and that it was not an agreement between the bankrupt and the appellant. The District Court sustained the referee.

In considering this eontraet, the language of this court In re Leflys, 229 F. 695, 696, is pertinent. The court said: “The eontraet under consideration is one not easy to classify. It indicates an intention to séeure the advantages and avoid the disadvantages of a conditional sale. In arriving at a proper construction of it, little weight can be given to the frequent allusions therein to the claim that the relation of the parties is that of principal and agent, as against the effect of its terms.”

In the eontraet now before the court there is no provision for the segregation and marking of the goods. It is not required that the Wayside Ihirniture Company shall be held out as the agent of the appellant. There is ' no reservation of title in the proceeds and no provision against commingling of the proceeds. The Wayside Company could sell the furniture at any price and on such terms as it saw fit to do. Its only obligation was to pay to the Union Company within thirty days after sales made by second party the amount at which the furniture was invoiced. The provision that the Wayside Company shall have “the privilege of purchasing such furniture or any part thereof upon such terms as may be specifically agreed to by the parties thereto” is meaningless unless it is read in connection with the right of the Wayside Company to sell the furniture and convey title thereto upon payment of the invoice price within thirty days. Taking the instrument as a whole, it appears that the consignee is at liberty to sell at a price and on terms fixed by itself, being answerable to the consignor for a fixed price. The eontraet, in our opinion, cannot be regarded as one of consignment. In re Leflys, supra; Flanders Motor Co. v. Reed (C. C. A.) 220 F. 642, 644; In re GarcewiCh (C. C. A.) 115 F. 87; In re United States Electrical Supply Co. (D. C.) 2 F.(2d) 378, 380.

The distinction between a contract such as the one now before us and contracts like the ones involved in Ludvigh v. American Woolen Company, 231 U. S. 522, 34 S. Ct. 161, 58 L. Ed. 345, and similar eases, is pointed out in Flanders Motor Co. v. Reed, supra. The court said

“The District Court held the trustee in' [203]*203that case entitled to the goods, notwithstanding the attempted reservation of title (176 F. 155); the Court of Appeals reaching the contrary result (188 F. 30, 110 C. C. A. 180), and the decision of the Court of Appeals being affirmed by the Supreme Court. In the opinion of the Court of Appeals it was said (188 F. 30, 33, 110 C. C. A. 180,183):

'Contracts of sale under which title is to remain in the vendor, although the vendee may consume the goods, or sell them and apply the proceeds to his own use, are fraudulent as to creditors, because the stipulation that title is to remain in the vendor is entirely inconsistent with the purpose of the contract’

—citing the decision of the same court in Re Garcewich, 115 F. 87, 53 C. C. A. 510. In the ease at bar there were no provisions to prevent the vendee from thus consuming the goods, or selling them and applying the proceeds to his own use, and Re Gareewieh therefore applies.”

We are also of the opinion that the contract falls within the definition of “conditional sale” in section 122.01 of the Wisconsin Statutes, 1931.2 The right of the consignee to sell on his own terms and convey title subject only to a liability to pay the invoice price within thirty days is a relinquishment by the consignor of title to the proceeds which stand for the property in the hands of the consignee. This brings tbe contract within the definition of paragraph (a). While appellant claims that the clause giving consignee the right to purchase the property upon such terms as the parties may agree to adds nothing to the contract, nevertheless, it is in the contract, and brings it within the terms of paragraph (b).

Appellant asserts that, as the contract was filed on October 7, 1932, and the bankruptcy suit was not filed until October 22, 1932, it is valid against the trustee under section 122.05 of the Wisconsin Statutes, 1931.3

The document filed was a contract between Union Furniture Company and Wayside Furniture Stores, by W. K. Kuebler, its trustee. Nothing was filed to show that it was adopted or acted upon by bankrupt. No contract with bankrupt was filed.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

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

Related

Heller v. Journal Co.
172 F.2d 363 (Seventh Circuit, 1949)
United States v. City and County of San Francisco
23 F. Supp. 40 (N.D. California, 1938)
Winnebago Mfg. Co. v. Goetz
67 F.2d 203 (Seventh Circuit, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 F.2d 201, 1933 U.S. App. LEXIS 4402, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/union-furniture-co-v-goetz-ca7-1933.