Conquest v. Goldman
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
• On exceptions by defendant. This is an action to recover the value of a stock of goods sold by the bankrupt to the defendant in violation of the Bulk Sales Statute. The defendant moved for a directed verdict for the reason that there was no evidence of deficiency of assets. This motion was denied and the defendant excepted. The plaintiff also moved for a directed verdict.
Read the full summary
• On exceptions by defendant. This is an action to recover the value of a stock of goods sold by the bankrupt to the defendant in violation of the Bulk Sales Statute. The defendant moved for a directed verdict for the reason that there was no evidence of deficiency of assets. This motion was denied and the defendant excepted. The plaintiff also moved for a directed verdict. This motion was granted, the presiding Judge ordering a verdict for $1,713.54, on the ground that the only evidence of value was the defendant’s admission. To this ruling defendant reserved exceptions. The case is stated…
1Opinion of the CourtDeasy, J.
Trover by the trustee in bankruptcy of Benjamin Applebaum against the defendant who purchased from Applebaum his stock of merchandise without conforming to the conditions of the Bulk Sales Statute. The facts clearly bring the case within the provisions of that statute as construed in Philoon v. Babbitt, 119 Maine, 172. The Judge, therefore, properly directed that a verdict be returned for the plaintiff. But we think that he was not justified in taking the question of damages, i. e., value, from the jury and ordering a verdict for $1,713.54.
The examination of the defendant in the bankruptcy…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Mueller v. BrussWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Kraver v. AbrahamsDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1913
- Drew v. MyersNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
- Flint v. ChaloupkaNebraska Supreme Court · 1908
3Cited by1 opinion
- Robinson v. DobbinsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928