Legal Opinion

Kirkholder & Rausch Co. v. Bridgland

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCunningham, J.

This action is brought to hold the defendant A. B. Williams Company, Inc., accountable to creditors of Harold W. Bridgland for goods of the latter transferred- to defendant Williams Company, without complying with the provisions of section 44 of the Personal Property Law. This section of the Personal Property Law makes void as against creditors of the seller a sale in bulk of any part or the whole of the stock of merchandise, or of merchandise and of fixtures, “ unless the seller, transferrer or assignor and the purchaser, transferee or assignee shall at least five days before the sale make a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Sessions v. RomadkaSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Skilton v. . CodingtonNew York Court of Appeals · 1906
  3. Dewey v. . MoyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  4. Moyer v. DeweySupreme Court of the United States · 1881
  5. Klein v. . MaravelasNew York Court of Appeals · 1916

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Costello v. EmmickNew York Supreme Court · 1923
  2. Maley v. BlakeneyNew York Supreme Court · 1945
  3. Thorndike & Hix Lobster Co. v. HallNew York Supreme Court · 1928

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

Powered by the Exa API