From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spear v. Hoxsie

Supreme Court, Special Term, Chemung County
Oct 23, 1937
164 Misc. 589 (N.Y. Misc. 1937)

Opinion

October 23, 1937.

Mandeville, Waxman, Buck, Teeter Harpending, for the plaintiff.

Albert R. Sherman, for the defendants.


This action is brought to recover a deficiency arising upon the resale of a motor truck under a conditional sales contract. The sale was not conducted by a licensed auctioneer.

Section 79 Pers. Prop. of the Personal Property Law provides that such sales shall be at "public auction." Section 23 Gen. Bus. of the General Business Law provides in substance that a "public auction" must be conducted by an auctioneer licensed thereunder. The only question is whether such a sale must be conducted by a licensed auctioneer. The defendant relies on LaRocca Builders, Inc., v. Sanders ( 230 A.D. 594, 596). There "many of the provisions of the Uniform Conditional Sales Act were not complied with" (p. 598). What was said at page 596 is dictum. In our opinion, the words "public auction," as used in said section 23, taken in their ordinary sense, refer to sales by persons engaged in the business of auctioneering and do not include sales under conditional sales contracts. Such sales need not be conducted by licensed auctioneers. ( Witter v. Bank of Milpitas, 204 Cal. 570; 269 P. 614, 619; Op. Atty.-Gen., 45 State Dept. Rep. 160, 175. See, also, Van Praag Co. v. Weinberg, 63 Misc. 324.)

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.

Submit order accordingly.


Summaries of

Spear v. Hoxsie

Supreme Court, Special Term, Chemung County
Oct 23, 1937
164 Misc. 589 (N.Y. Misc. 1937)
Case details for

Spear v. Hoxsie

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE A. SPEAR, Plaintiff, v. RALPH HOXSIE and JENNIE WHALEN, Defendants

Court:Supreme Court, Special Term, Chemung County

Date published: Oct 23, 1937

Citations

164 Misc. 589 (N.Y. Misc. 1937)
299 N.Y.S. 218

Citing Cases

State v. Farris

Practicing a profession involves one's publicly holding himself out to the public as a practitioner as well…

Root v. Woolworth

In the case of Ellis v. Murray, 28 Miss. 129, under the third section of the act of limitations, passed in…