Brucker v. Carroll
New York County Courts
The plaintiff, a minor twenty years of age at the time of the trial, bought a motor cycle of the defendants’ firm upon a contract of conditional sale, upon which during the summer of 1913 he paid a total of $173.50. Sometime in the fall, plaintiff’s mother went to defendants’ store and stated to a member of the firm that they had been talking the matter over in the household and didn’t want the boy to have the motor cycle; that a neighbor’s son had recently been hurt on one,…
Read the full summary
The plaintiff, a minor twenty years of age at the time of the trial, bought a motor cycle of the defendants’ firm upon a contract of conditional sale, upon which during the summer of 1913 he paid a total of $173.50. Sometime in the fall, plaintiff’s mother went to defendants’ store and stated to a member of the firm that they had been talking the matter over in the household and didn’t want the boy to have the motor cycle; that a neighbor’s son had recently been hurt on one, and it was agreed between the mother and the defendants that they should send for the cycle, bring it to their store,…
1Opinion of the CourtHazard, J.
Upon the undisputed facts in this case, as outlined above, I think the whole question presented is with reference to the meaning of the words “ retaken by the vendor,” appearing in section 65 of the Personal Property Law. I am unable to find any decision bearing directly upon this point, of any court in this state. It is claimed by the defendants that they did not “ retake ” the cycle within the meaning of the law, and that it is in their possession under a special agreement, namely, the arrangement made with the parents of the plaintiff, as some sort of bailees; or, possibly, as trustee for…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Crowe v. . Liquid Carbonic Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1913
- White v. A. W. Gray's SonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
- Moneyweight Scale Co. v. MehlingAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1910
3Cited by1 opinion
- Pflugheber v. Universal Motor Truck Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1915