Legal Opinion

Goodman v. Schulman

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided June 30, 1932PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGeismar, J.

On April 19, 1926, Brandt & Co. made a chattel mortgage for $25,000 to the Mastan Company which was later duly assigned to the defendant Schulman. This mortgage contained the familiar clause permitting summary entry, seizure and public or private sale upon any default. The only provision as to notice is contained in an ensuing clause which says: “ And it is expressly understood and agreed that if Notice of Seizure or sale be sent to the mortgagor by registered mail at the above address it shall be deemed sufficient notice thereof.” On February 8, 1927, the mortgagors made to one Goodman,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Harrison v. HallNew York Court of Appeals · 1924
  2. Minor v. . BeveridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Hill v. PackardCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1830
  4. Sheldon v. McFeeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Mason v. Automobile Finance Co.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
  2. Lepley v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1940

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

Powered by the Exa API