Legal Opinion

W. F. & R. Boat Builders, Inc. v. Hammond

New York Supreme Court

Decided September 29, 1931PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtUntermyer, J.

Plaintiff, a conditional vendor of two barges, seeks to recover a balance of the purchase price remaining due after a repossession and resale thereof. The contracts of conditional sale contain no express provision by which the vendee may be held liable for any such deficiency.- Recourse must, therefore, be had to the statute in effect at the time the contracts were made (Pers. Prop. Law of 1909, § 65), rather than to the statute now in effect, to determine the extent of the defendant’s liability. (Haefelein v. Jacob, 106 App. Div. 163; see Laws of 1922, chap. 642, § 3.) Unlike the present…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ratchford v. Cayuga County Cold Storage & Warehouse Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Adler v. . Weis Fisher Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  3. George A. Ohl & Co. v. Standard Steel Sections, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  4. Sigal v. Frank E. Hatch Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1908
  5. Spitaleri v. BrownAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Waverly, Sayre & Athens Transp. Co. v. General Motors Truck Co.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
  2. Laufer v. BurghardNew York Supreme Court · 1932

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

Powered by the Exa API