Legal Opinion

L. W. Sweet & Co. v. Provident Loan Society

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 17, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. People v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  2. Soltau v. . GerdauNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  3. Schmidt v. . SimpsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
  4. Walter J. Stone, Inc. v. Provident Loan SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1932

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Mendelsohn v. R. Simpson & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1944
  2. Kirsch v. Provident Loan SocietyAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1947
  3. Deferred Payment Plan, Inc. v. BennettAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942
  4. Copin v. LeuciCity of New York Municipal Court · 1955
  5. Frisch v. PerleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API