Veenema & Wiegers, Inc. v. White Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Veenema & Wiegers, Inc. v. White Co.

187 A. 529, 14 N.J. Misc. 798, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 258

DecidedOctober 9, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A. 529 (Veenema & Wiegers, Inc. v. White Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Veenema & Wiegers, Inc. v. White Co., 187 A. 529, 14 N.J. Misc. 798, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 258 (N.J. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Ctjeiam.

This case was tried by the District Court judge, sitting without a jury; and the sole ground of appeal is that there was error in the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a “directed verdict in its favor.” This and other specifications raise the question of whether there is any evidence to support the judgment.

The inquiry must be resolved in the affirmative. Under the circumstances, it was open to the judge to find that the sale was in fact unconditional, and that the conditional sales agreement was an afterthought. Moreover, he found as a fact that the defendant corporation had no knowledge of the claimed conditional sales contract between plaintiff and Siematkowski, until after the sale in the proceedings instituted to foreclose its chattel mortgage, and the resale of the vehicle to Palo (it was not recorded at any time); and, in [799]*799such circumstances, the long and unexplained delay after Siematkowski’s default in exercising the now asserted right of possession under this unrecorded instrument tends to refute the claim of a conditional sale. We think, too, that it constituted a waiver of the condition, if in fact there was such a contract, and precludes recovery in an action for conversion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Pee Ctjeiam.

This case was tried by the District Court judge, sitting without a jury; and the sole ground of appeal is that there was error in the denial of plaintiff’s motion for a “directed verdict in its favor.” This and other specifications raise the question of whether there is any evidence to support the judgment.

The inquiry must be resolved in the affirmative. Under the circumstances, it was open to the judge to find that the sale was in fact unconditional, and that the conditional sales agreement was an afterthought. Moreover, he found as a fact that the defendant corporation had no knowledge of the claimed conditional sales contract between plaintiff and Siematkowski, until after the sale in the proceedings instituted to foreclose its chattel mortgage, and the resale of the vehicle to Palo (it was not recorded at any time); and, in [799]*799such circumstances, the long and unexplained delay after Siematkowski’s default in exercising the now asserted right of possession under this unrecorded instrument tends to refute the claim of a conditional sale. We think, too, that it constituted a waiver of the condition, if in fact there was such a contract, and precludes recovery in an action for conversion.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A. 529, 14 N.J. Misc. 798, 1936 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veenema-wiegers-inc-v-white-co-nj-1936.