Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Meyer v. Sherwood Automobile Corp. 123 Misc. 923

← Cases

Meyer v. Sherwood Automobile Corp.

123 Misc. 923 Court Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department, Decision date 1924-11-11 English

Contents

Majority

p. 923
Henry C. Meyer, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. Sherwood Automobile Corporation, Defendant, Respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
November 11, 1924.

Headnote

Sales — action by vendee for damages by reason of sale of chattel in replevin action without notice to conditional vendee as prescribed by Personal Property Law (Laws of 1909, chap. 45), § 66 — vendor liable pursuant to Personal Property Law (Laws of 1909, chap. 45), § 65, without proof of vendee’s damages.
The defendant vendor, who sold a chattel under a judgment in an action in replevin without notice to the conditional vendee as prescribed by section 66 of the Personal Property Law (Laws of 1909, chap. 45), is liable, pursuant to section 65 of the Personal Property Law (Laws of 1909, chap. 45), for damages to the vendee by reason of the sale, without proof of vendee’s damages.
Appeal by plaintiff from a judgment of the City Court of the city of New York, rendered in favor of defendant.
Almy, Van Gordon & Evans {William S. Evans, of counsel), for the appellant.
Pitkin & Rosensohn {Samuel J. Rosensohn, of counsel), for the respondent.

The chattel having been sold under the judgment in the replevin action without notice to the conditional vendee as prescribed in section 66 of the Personal Property Law (Laws of 1909, chap. 45),[1] the vendor is liable in accordance with section

* See Laws of 1922, chapter 642, repealing former article 4 (§§ 64-67) of the Personal Property Law and adding new article 4 (§§ 60-80j).— [Rep.

p. 924
65 of that statute, and it was unnecessary to prove the vendee’s damages.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Guy, Bijur and Mullan, JJ.