Mills v. Hallock
New York Court of Chancery
The bill, which was filed on the twentieth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, originally went against William Pike and Joshua C. Skidmore. It had been dismissed, as to Pike, by consent; and Pike died two days after the same was filed.
Read the full summary
The bill, which was filed on the twentieth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, originally went against William Pike and Joshua C. Skidmore. It had been dismissed, as to Pike, by consent; and Pike died two days after the same was filed. The pleading showed that the complainants, Sylvester H. Mills, Levi A. Mills and Thomas M. Hooker, as auctioneers in the city of New York, and about the ninth and twenty-second days of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, sold to the said William Pike certain goods, specified in a schedule, to the amount of five hundred and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor:
In the case of Haggerty v. Palmer, 6 J. C. R. 437, it was assumed that the delivery of the goods was conditional, from the usage of trade which was said to exist in relation to auction sales in the city of New York where goods were sold for approved endorsed notes and the notes were not given ; and it was held that the auctioneer could reclaim the goods or their proceeds in the hands of a voluntary assignee; and in Keeler v. Field, 1 Paige’s C. R. 312, the delivery was considered to be conditional by the terms of the contract itself until endorsed notes were given and not…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rickerson v. . Hartford Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Ames Mercantile Co. v. Kimball S. S. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1903
- Rosenstein v. McCutcheonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- McMichael v. Federal Printing Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910