Merrill v. Thomas
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from an order of this court at special term, made by Chief Justice Charles P. Daly, denying a motion by plaintiff for an injunction pending the action. The conceded facts of the case appear in the complaint, which recites substantially as follows : The plaintiff is a general creditor of Thomas & Co., who have made an assignment for the benefit of creditors to the defendant, John L. Hill.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of this court at special term, made by Chief Justice Charles P. Daly, denying a motion by plaintiff for an injunction pending the action. The conceded facts of the case appear in the complaint, which recites substantially as follows : The plaintiff is a general creditor of Thomas & Co., who have made an assignment for the benefit of creditors to the defendant, John L. Hill. That before the making of the assignment, the firm of Thomas & Co. had certain dealings with the defendants, John Bradbury & Co., Holmes & Ellis, Booth & Miller, The Conversville Company, and The…
1Opinion of the CourtJoseph F. Daly, J.
The theory of the plaintiff is, that the proceeds of the goods consigned to Thomas & Co. are their property, as against the consignors, because of the advances made by them and their guaranty of sales under their del credere commission. The consignment to them upon an agreement for advances gave them a vested interest in the goods for their protection and as security for their advances and charges; an interest which enabled them to hold the goods against third parties and the consignor himself, but only so far as was necessary for their protection and security, and their title was a qualified…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- White & Williams v. PlattNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Stoll v. KingNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Sherwood v. . StoneNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- German Bank v. . EdwardsNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- F. and M. Nat. B'k Buffalo v. . SpragueNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Bertha Zinc & Mineral Co. v. CluteNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- Moline Malleable Iron Co. v. York Iron Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1897
- Springville Manufacturing Co. v. LincolnNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1890
- Moore v. HillabrandNew York Supreme Court · 1885