Legal Opinion

Himmelstein v. Bach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided January 8, 1941PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBliss, J.

The facts are stipulated. On November 28, 1932, the defendant Sam Bach sold all the stock and machinery of his shoe store and repair shop without any notice of such sale being given to plaintiff’s assignor. The latter then held Bach’s promissory note for $400 which had been executed and delivered to her on October 24, 1932, but which did not mature until February 24, 1933. Our question is whether or not plaintiff’s assignor was entitled to notice of the sale under section 44 of the Personal Property Law, commonly called the Bulk Sales Act. This statute provides that such a sale is void as…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Karst v. . GaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  2. Apex Leasing Co. v. LitkeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
  3. Eklund v. HopkinsWashington Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Fitzhugh v. MunnellOregon Supreme Court · 1919
  5. Adams-Flanigan Company v. . Di DonatoNew York Court of Appeals · 1920

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Cleaners Products Supply, Inc. v. GarciaCivil Court of the City of New York · 1995
  2. J. D. & H. Enterprises Corp. v. ByrneNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  3. American Mercantile Co. v. WohlmuthAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1952
  4. Maley v. BlakeneyNew York Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Schlussel v. Emmanuel Roth Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1994

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

Powered by the Exa API