L. W. Sweet & Co. v. Provident Loan Society
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtHtjbbs, J.
This case was submitted to the Appellate Division upon an agreed statement of facts. Plaintiff is engaged in the jewelry business. The defendant is a pawnbroker. Plaintiff intrusted to an employee a diamond ring to sell to one Doctor Chiaramonte for $750. At the time the employee did not intend to sell the ring, but had a preconceived design to steal it and to convert the proceeds to his own use. Thereafter the employee pledged the ring with the defendant, which in good faith loaned him $225 on it. The Appellate Division has decided that the Factors’ Act does not apply in such circumstances…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- People v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Soltau v. . GerdauNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Schmidt v. . SimpsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
- Walter J. Stone, Inc. v. Provident Loan SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mendelsohn v. R. Simpson & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
- Kirsch v. Provident Loan SocietyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1947
- Deferred Payment Plan, Inc. v. BennettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
- Copin v. LeuciCity of New York Municipal Court · 1955
- Frisch v. PerleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942