TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Ginsberg v. Martin

Jacob Ginsberg, Doing Business as the Wellmade Junior Clothing Company v. George V. Martin

Ginsberg v. Martin, 122 Misc. 468 (1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
February 15, 1924
Citations
122 Misc. 468

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff delivered 110 suits to one Blau on the 29th of September, 1922. The receipt or invoice which accompanied the goods bears the words “ on memorandum.” A few days later Blau became bankrupt and defendant was duly appointed receiver. A notice was served by plaintiff upon the receiver that he was the owner of the goods and entitled to their possession. In disregard of this notice the receiver disposed of them at public sale with the other assets of the bankrupt. Upon these facts this action was brought for conversion against the receiver individually.

A consideration of these deliveries on memorandum by the Supreme Court of the United States in Sturm v. Boker, 150 U. S. 312 ; Ludvigh v. Am. Woolen Co., 231 id. 522, and by the District Court for this district in Matter of Schindler, 158 Fed. Rep. 458, has resulted in a clear distinction between two classes of cases. In the one a delivery to a proposed purchaser with an option in the purchaser to return the goods and thus revest title in the seller is *469 sometimes spoken of as a contract of sale or return. The other class of cases is one in which there is an option in the purchaser to take title upon certain conditions. In the latter class title does not pass until the option is exercised, and in the meantime the title and the right to immediate possession remain in the seller. Sales on memorandum belong to this latter group, and in view of the fact that the title to the goods in the case at bar remained in the seller at the time of the bankruptcy, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijub, Mullan and Lydon, JJ.

Ordered accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1928: 11987: 11990: 12006: 119282026peak 1928 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Nektalov440 F. Supp. 2d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
  2. Underwriters at Lloyds v. Shimer (In re Ide Jewelry Co.)75 B.R. 969 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)
  3. First State Bank of Purdy, Mo. v. Miller (In re Miller)119 B.R. 660 (W.D. Ark. 1990)
  4. Sanette Corp. v. Sanette Corp.132 Misc. 455 (1928)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Nektalov440 F. Supp. 2d 287 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
  2. First State Bank of Purdy, Mo. v. Miller (In re Miller)119 B.R. 660 (W.D. Ark. 1990)
  3. Underwriters at Lloyds v. Shimer (In re Ide Jewelry Co.)75 B.R. 969 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)
  4. Sanette Corp. v. Sanette Corp.132 Misc. 455 (1928)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Sturm v. Boker, 150 U.S. 312 (1893) 265

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list