Case ID: ny_221/html/0679-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shipley Construction and Supply Company, Appellant, v. Martin Mager et al., Respondents. York Manufacturing Company, Appellant, v. Martin Mager et al., Respondents.
    (Submitted October 16, 1917;
    decided October 30, 1917.)
    
      Shipley Construction & Supply Co. v. Mager, 165 App. Div. 866, affirmed.
    
      York Manufacturing Co. v. Mager, 165 App. Div. 872, affirmed.
    Appeal, in each of the above-entitled actions, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered January 9, 1915, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action for conversion of certain machinery installed by plaintiff in a certain brewery under an alleged conditional contract of sale. The plaintiff contended that only part of the purchase price had been paid; that defendants had bought at foreclosure sale the real property of the brewing company upon which the machinery above mentioned was erected and situate; that at such foreclosure sale and prior to the commencement of the bidding, the plaintiff caused a notice to be read apprising all present of the aforesaid conditional sale contract and that the plaintiff had the right to and did elect to remove the said machinery; that thereafter the plaintiff made an oral and written demand on the defendants for the same and that it was refused. The foreclosure action was based on a mortgage made and executed three years, lacking two months, before the conditional sale contract involved herein.
    
      Jacob Landy and Herman W. Booth for appellant.
    
      Joseph Rowan, Franklyn M. Silverstein and R. C. Gumming for respondents.
   Judgment in each case affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.