From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davidson v. Heyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1934
243 App. Div. 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Opinion

December, 1934.

Appeal from Municipal Court of the City of New York.


Order of Appellate Term reversed on the law and the facts in so far as it affirms the judgment of the Municipal Court and also in so far as it affirms so much of the order as denies the motion to set aside the verdict, and unanimously affirmed in so far as it affirms so much of the order as denies the motion for a new trial; judgment of the Municipal Court reversed; motion to set aside verdict granted, and complaint dismissed, with costs in all courts. In our opinion, the mere fact that the seller of the merchandise and fixtures in question had ceased to do business and had closed her place of business prior to the execution of the bill of sale does not render the sale valid. Notwithstanding this fact, it was a sale in bulk within the meaning of the Bulk Sales Act. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 44; Teich v. McAuley, 212 S.W. 979.) Lazansky, P.J., Young, Carswell, Scudder and Davis, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Davidson v. Heyman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 1, 1934
243 App. Div. 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)
Case details for

Davidson v. Heyman

Case Details

Full title:HYMAN DAVIDSON, Respondent, v. LOUIS HEYMAN, City Marshal, and Another…

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

Date published: Dec 1, 1934

Citations

243 App. Div. 546 (N.Y. App. Div. 1934)

Citing Cases

Danning v. Daylin, Inc.

They held that the mere fact that a merchant terminates his business or engages in other lines of employment…

Butler Bros. v. Sinkin

We are unable to see how the mere closing of the store for four months could make this merchandise any less…