From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tchlenoff v. Jacobs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1944
267 App. Div. 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Opinion

March 6, 1944.

Present — Carswell, Acting P.J., Johnston, Adel, Lewis and Aldrich, JJ. [See post, p. 987.]


Action to cancel a chattel mortgage, to declare plaintiff the owner of the chattels, and for other relief. Order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and denying plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and the judgment entered thereon, unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. With the right to sell, and with plaintiff's consent, the Universal Machine Tool Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, had possession of the chattels claimed to be owned by plaintiff. That company gave a mortgage on the property to defendants. The mortgage is void as against the creditors of Universal by reason of the failure to comply with the provisions of section 230-a of the Lien Law. The rights of the creditors are now vested in the trustee in bankruptcy of Universal and not in plaintiff. If it be deemed that the possession of Universal was that of a conditional vendee under the agreement between it and plaintiff, then under the Uniform Conditional Sales Act (Personal Property Law, § 69, amd. L. 1941, ch. 851) the defendants who took the mortgage are purchasers. (See definitions, Personal Property Law, § 156.) As against purchasers, the owner's reservation of property is void.


Summaries of

Tchlenoff v. Jacobs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 6, 1944
267 App. Div. 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)
Case details for

Tchlenoff v. Jacobs

Case Details

Full title:MICHEL TCHLENOFF, Appellant, v. HARRY A. JACOBS et al., Copartners under…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 6, 1944

Citations

267 App. Div. 908 (N.Y. App. Div. 1944)

Citing Cases

Rand's Discount v. Universal Credit Corp.

The controversy was submitted to the Appellate Division upon a statement of agreed facts (Civ. Prac. Act, §§…

Rand's Discount v. Universal Credit Corp.

Defendant contends, however, that since section 65 Pers. Prop. of the Personal Property Law excepts…