Weiss v. Imperator Realty Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Weiss v. Imperator Realty Co.

124 Misc. 745, 209 N.Y.S. 218, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 741

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 9, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 124 Misc. 745 (Weiss v. Imperator Realty Co.) 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

Weiss v. Imperator Realty Co., 124 Misc. 745, 209 N.Y.S. 218, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 741 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

On the 6th of May, 1924, one Friedman executed a chattel mortgage on certain office furniture and other goods to plaintiff. On June 1, 1925, Friedman, the mortgagor, became indebted to defendant in the sum of $166.66 for rent pursuant to a lease. On the sixth of June, the due date of the mortgage, it was not paid and the mortgagee the following day went to the defendant accompanied by a marshal and announced that he intended to take possession of the chattels. What happened at that conversation is disputed, but assuming that the defendant requested the plaintiff not to take possession of the chattels, and even assuming that he made some promise in relation thereto, no right of plaintiff was infringed because no right then existed. The mortgage had been withheld from filing throughout all this period, which is as matter of law an unreasonable length of time (Tooker v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 194 N. Y. 442), and it was, therefore, void as to defendant, a creditor whose debt had meanwhile accrued. (See Skilton v. Codington, 185 N. Y. 80, 86; Davidson v. Osborne, 151 App. Div. 747, 748.)

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Proskauer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

On the 6th of May, 1924, one Friedman executed a chattel mortgage on certain office furniture and other goods to plaintiff. On June 1, 1925, Friedman, the mortgagor, became indebted to defendant in the sum of $166.66 for rent pursuant to a lease. On the sixth of June, the due date of the mortgage, it was not paid and the mortgagee the following day went to the defendant accompanied by a marshal and announced that he intended to take possession of the chattels. What happened at that conversation is disputed, but assuming that the defendant requested the plaintiff not to take possession of the chattels, and even assuming that he made some promise in relation thereto, no right of plaintiff was infringed because no right then existed. The mortgage had been withheld from filing throughout all this period, which is as matter of law an unreasonable length of time (Tooker v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 194 N. Y. 442), and it was, therefore, void as to defendant, a creditor whose debt had meanwhile accrued. (See Skilton v. Codington, 185 N. Y. 80, 86; Davidson v. Osborne, 151 App. Div. 747, 748.)

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Proskauer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Misc. 745, 209 N.Y.S. 218, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weiss-v-imperator-realty-co-nyappterm-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack