Legal Opinion · Dissent

Cummings-Landau Laundry MacHinery Co., Inc. v. Alderman

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 6, 1954No. 22969_1Published

1DissentClark, Circuit Judge

Judge Harlan’s able opinion, however attractive its argument, cannot, I fear, be accepted as the existing Connecticut law of conditional sales. I emphasize the local nature of the problem, because that is its proper setting. Even before the recent violent recrudescence of state law in the federal courts it was accepted doctrine that the extent of protection for creditors of a possessor, though not owner, of personal property was a matter of local policy. Maguire v. Gorbaty Bros., 2 Cir., 133 F.2d 675; Air Equipment Corp. v. Rubbercraft Corp., 2 Cir., 79 F.2d 521. But there does not seem…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. In re Wilcox & Howe Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
  2. Second National Bank of New Haven v. DyerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
  3. Commercial Credit Corporation v. CarlsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
  4. Ives v. StoneSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1884
  5. Standard Acceptance Corp. v. ConnorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940

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

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

Powered by the Exa API